Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Computational Linguistics: What Distinguishes Subjective (held In The Mind) From Objective (testable)?

    I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can.

    Subjectivity refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience.

    Subjectively experienced:
    – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable)
    – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable)
    – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable)
    – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable)
    – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable)
    – no, that’s not believable. (reportable).

    Objectivity refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical.

    Objectively experienced:
    – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions)
    – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions)
    – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions)
    – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions)
    – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions)
    – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions).

    Neither Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable:

    – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number.
    – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions.
    – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary).

    SCIENCE AND THE WEST
    The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be.

    The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good.

    This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.

    But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it.

    What we intuit is often not a good thing.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Computational-Linguistics-What-distinguishes-subjective-held-in-the-mind-from-objective-testable

  • NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION NATURAL LAW Testimonialism: Episte

    NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION

    NATURAL LAW

    Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech).

    SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION)

    Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.

    THE RESTORATION

    1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about.

    2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others.

    3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully.

    4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons.

    5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence

    So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state?

    We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market.

    My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism).

    The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f

    Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 09:42:00 UTC

  • James Augustus I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary languag

    James Augustus

    I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary language in ethics, law and science is that we needed a rational, empirical means of decidability in matters concerning rule, organization and extra-familial cooperation.

    (Note that legal realism, contractualism and truth telling (science and it’s precursors) coincided with conquest and colonization of non-kin groups. Myth (context driven means of decidability) doesn’t scale past regulating/adjudicating tribal and familia affairs; Natural Law does because it serves as the only universally decidable means of adjudication between heterogeneous peoples.)

    On the institutional level, the West was blessed with a geography that produced a high frequency of warfare in a manner that made institutional monopolies evolutionarily disadvantageous. An institution was able to survive if it wasn’t conflated with the current power structure (think of the Church and it’s relation to political power during the Middle Ages). In othewords, the incentive for institutions was to secure their existence by remaining autonomous/separated from the institutions of rule scince there was constant and frequent shifts in political power—the opposite of China.

    These are just loose thoughts. I’ve been mulling this over in hopes that I can write a more formal evolutionary argument for Western Dynamism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 18:51:00 UTC

  • Testimonial Truth, Sovereignty, and Natural Law, Are Sacred To Western Man

    Testimonial Truth, Sovereignty, and Natural Law, Are Sacred To Western Man.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 07:39:00 UTC

  • The great gift of testimonialism is not so much that you can be sure you’re righ

    The great gift of testimonialism is not so much that you can be sure you’re right but it is just so damned hard to be wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 21:32:00 UTC

  • While I don’t really ‘teach’ so much as perform research online, teaching is a b

    While I don’t really ‘teach’ so much as perform research online, teaching is a byproduct of that research.

    One of the reasons I like “teaching” online is because people have time to contemplate in a way that they do not have time in the classroom. Furthermore they can choose what to contemplate, and when to contemplate it.

    One of the other reasons is the One Room Schoolhouse where people of all levels exist, and people can learn by observation, repetition, asking questions, making arguments, and teaching others.

    We can cover the same material from dozens of different directions.

    To some people this may seem inefficient. But is it? You can teach a hell of a lot of people this way. Versus a classroom? We have an enormous one room schoolhouse on the internet.

    We teach most humans the wrong way – not as a campfire, but as a job. Not through stories and problems but through stress. Not through repetition but through force.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 02:22:00 UTC

  • TRUE ENOUGH – FOR THE CONSEQUENCES We are limited by physical reality, and the l

    TRUE ENOUGH – FOR THE CONSEQUENCES

    We are limited by physical reality, and the limits of our biology and technology within that physical reality, because of costs. Costs of time, energy, and resources.

    True? Truthfulness is costly. So, True enough for what?

    1) … The Transfer of Meaning (understanding without harm)

    2) … … Taking Personal Action (utility without harm)

    3) … … … Taking Interpersonal Action (avoiding harm to others)

    4) … … … … Providing Dispute Resolution (imposing harm on others)

    When we discourse or debate? True enough for what?

    1) … To convey meaning?

    2) … … To obtain agreement on categories and values?

    3) … … … For the purposes of subsequent deduction? (sufficiency)

    4) … … … … For the purpose of falsification? (removing argument)

    5) … … … … … For the purpose of coercion? (removing choice)

    6) … … … … … … For the purpose of prosecution? (imposing harm)

    ‘Deflationary Truth’ refers to the absence of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit.

    ‘Science’ refers to the process by which we produce deflationary truth by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Not meaning, not sufficiency for individual action, or interpersonal action, but for the provision of agency(limitation of choice), and dispute resolution (reduction of choice), or punishment (elimination of choice).

    “Agency” refers to the condition under which an individual acts having eliminated ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit, so that individuals may act in perfect concert with the universe. Perfect Agency exists in a condition of perfect Truth, and Perfect Truth exists only so far as it is created by science.

    “Sovereignty” refers to a condition of agency when acting in reality amidst the limits of physical and cooperative reality. PerfectSovereignty exists in the condition of perfect agency.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 12:03:00 UTC

  • “you’re no philosopher!”— First, ridicule, rallying and shaming is (a) feminin

    —“you’re no philosopher!”—

    First, ridicule, rallying and shaming is (a) feminine, (b) marxist, (c) demonstration of the failure of one’s ability to construct arguments (d) demonstration of the failure of one’s ideology.

    I qualify for having increased decidability and explanatory power in my domain of inquiry. That is what qualifies one as a philosopher. Sorry. Just how it is.

    I probably qualify for merely explaining the reason why Mises failed along with Brouwer and Bridgman. But certainly for explaining the relationship between them, popper and hayek. And for solving the problem hayek couldn’t complete, by translating rothbard’s ghetto legal ethics, and hoppe’s kantian rationalist ethics, into anglo empirical and scientific language. A language that can be used to construct proofs – what hoppe was trying to construct.

    So again, you don’t have an argument, right? You are just another crypto-marxist begging for free redistribution of the productivity of others by parasitic consumption of and free-riding upon the commons they produce, rather than directly upon the productivity of what they originally produce?

    Right? That’s what you demonstrate that you do? You’re just another crypto marxist with a different strategy for parasitism. Andyou defend your parasitism with ridicule rallying and shaming beause you, like women, cannot face the truth of your fantasies: you beg for free riding as a claim against the productivity of others.

    I eat you libertine munchkins like pringles with beer. lol

    Bend over.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 13:04:00 UTC

  • (yes I know, i’m wasting my time, but damn, it’s fun to make libertines my b–ch

    (yes I know, i’m wasting my time, but damn, it’s fun to make libertines my b–ch.)

    Rik Moore You do realize you are a complete joke in libertarian circles. Just a complete joke.

    Curt Doolittle You do realize that libertarians are a complete joke everywhere except libertarian circles. lol

    And your attempts at shaming in order to avoid arguments demonstrate the reason libertarianism failed: its only suitable for not-so-bright young males that can’t get laid. 😉

    Rik Moore Well I don’t have to move to Ukraine to flash a couple of $20 bills around to get laid, that’s for sure.

    Curt Doolittle Dude, I did just fine here in the states… ’cause I’m not a douchebag, and I”m accomplished, and good looking, and interesting, so I did better than you ever will.

    I mean you rally and shame like a pussy, you argue like a pussy, you look like a pussy … and if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. lol. You’re a pussy.

    I love trash talking douchebags. It’s a cheap display of dominance. It gives me an excuse to demonstrate the pubescent idiocy of libertinism, and it’s free advertising, and it gives my friends a laugh.

    I mean, I don’t really mind USING you as my bitch. It’s kind of fun and it’s profitable so to speak. lol But it’s like you just can’t help but VOLUNTEER to be my bitch. It’s like you walk up and bend over and hand me a bar of soap. Damn.

    Like lemmings.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 12:23:00 UTC

  • (dear dimwit) (from elsewhere) Please don’t friend me so that you can waste my t

    (dear dimwit) (from elsewhere)

    Please don’t friend me so that you can waste my time with non-arguments. My time is valuable. Furthermore, If you can only produce the rational equivalent of green frog memes then you lack rationality, and lacking rationality you lack agency, and lacking agency you can never possess sovereignty, and as such can never possess a condition of liberty.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 10:05:00 UTC