Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • DOES DOOLITTLE THINK ABOUT PSEUDOSCIENCE? –“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfbWHAT DOES DOOLITTLE THINK ABOUT PSEUDOSCIENCE?

    –“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal argument for years. Which is why certain folks we know who argue economic metaphysics is the only way of creating a predictive reality are batshit crazy ;-)”–

    –“Michael DeMond: LOL you mean folks like Curt Doolittle???? I would LOVE to hear his thoughts on this! :D”–

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

    Hi Michael. Be careful when you call the devil, because sometimes he comes. lol 😉

    DR HOFFMAN 1) OVERSTATES THE CASE, 2) CONFUSES THE OBSERVER EFFECT AND THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND 3) MAKES A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT – IN OTHER WORDS, HE’S TALKING MOSTLY NONSENSE

    I call this, ‘new age mysticism’.

    —“Hoffman: We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally.

    Gefter: If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they?

    Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.”—

    A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: COST

    1 – the value of memory is in outwitting the current course of events by acting in response to stimuli (information).

    2 – to act in response to stimuli we must process information quickly enough to act to change the course of events. information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) Information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.)

    3 – information processing is very expensive – our human brains are very, very, very expensive organs. The more expensive the information processing the more calories required to support information processing. (Humans have sacrificed strength for the ability to run long distances – longer than any other land creature – and to think.)

    4 – we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, what we need to in order to act. We don’t see hear, smell, taste, feel what we do not need to in order to act – because it would be an unnecessary cost.

    5 – Information carried by Electromagnetic Radiation (light) is cheap vs action-distance and energy required. But increases cost of processing. Same is true for hearing and smell (dogs), or vibration (spiders). Of these, light requires the least energy output by the entity that can be acted upon, over the longest actionable distance. Vibration the opposite. opponents and prey can control vibration and sound. sometimes they can control smell. and sometimes they can hide. They can only control light by hiding or darkness. It is hard to control all of them.

    7 – we remember only the minimum information necessary to identify opportunities to act – because more so would be an unnecessary cost, or take unnecessary time.

    ANALOGY:PUZZLES

    Now, imagine you have a series of black and white photos of snakes.Put each of them (a lot of them) on panes of glass. Cut the images (not the glass) into small puzzle pieces. remove all the pieces that are not necessary to define the outline of the snake. We evolved to fear in snakes is their means of movement even more so than the shape. so now imagine that instead of photos we have 1 second animated gifs and we make all the pixels transparent that aren’t necessary to create a vague shape of this snake.

    Next, our eyes have lots of sensors in the very center of our focus and many fewer as we radiate outward. So take a picture of two ‘marker’ features like the pattern on the back, and the head and eyes. Now that’s just the visual component. This will also store a sort of color map of the snake. (There is a huge similarity to how we compress video and how the brain stores information, except there is more information in the video than our memories )

    So when we see a snake we find those very small sets of puzzle pieces in many different memories, and we sort of experience them as a very fast movie, blended together. Then as we watch the snake, every 1000th of a second we add more and more visual detail to those memories. so we start out with a very simple picture, using substitution of memories to fill in what we glimpse, and increasingly we fill in with observations rather than just substitutions from memory. When this happens we start predicting the future by the difference between the substitutions and the vision we experience in real time.

    It is better to think of the brain as a producer of continuous, iterative search results with a two second afterglow(a half-second half-life). So a memory stay’s ‘on’ if it’s continuously activated and dim’s if it’s not.

    If we are lucky, we can create a model(space) from it, and so between shape and model and color and sound, and continuous excitement of the same we can imagine pretty ‘complete’ information about this thing.

    (I started working as a delivery runner for my dad at age 7. it was a small city. within a few years, i could draw a map of the city to scale by hand, and a rough outline of all the houses in it. Just from memory. By the time I was twelve or fourteen I could draw the interior wood frame of a house by looking at it from the outside and drew dozens of houses in perspective showing their interior frames. We are capable of creating complex models. Even today I can generally diagnose what’s wrong with a car from just the sounds I hear. The point being that the map and the diagnosis are ‘accurate enough’ to act upon. Which is the author’s underlying argument.)

    (yet I cannot often read facial expressions which leads to the nest point: sensory differences)

    A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: SENSORY DIFFERENCES

    So some of us have highly attuned auditory (musical) senses. Some of us have perfect pitch and many of us do not. Some of us see different color densities and certainly the genders do. Some of us are more sensitive to vibrations. Some of us to ‘level’ (i can judge the level of a building and it bothers me terribly if it’s off.) Some of us cannot notice or do not notice at all.

    A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: VALUE JUDGEMENTS

    We know men, younger men, and females value differently. We know some cultures percieve similarities differently.

    THE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY

    So while any single human possesses only so many cognitive puzzle pieces about any topic, a band, a tribe, a nation, and a civilization possess a phenomenal amount of information about reality.

    By communicating and testing each other’s communications. By cooperating (or not), and by exchanging (or not), or by investing (or not), or by boycotting (or not), or by fighing (or not) we transfer information between individuals, groups, and super-groups.

    The evidence is that over time our actions increasingly corresponde with reality – as long as we use (a) scientific truth (b) rule of law, (c) markets, (d) many small competing polities that produce commons.

    If we do not, use a-d, then we will at some point stagnate if not regress. If we do use a-d, then we will continue to advance. Ergo, the west evolves faster than the rest.

    SUBSET AND SUBSTITUTION AND VALUE IS DIFFERENT FROM FALSE

    So we don’t have an ‘erroneous’ understanding of reality. we have a limited understanding of reality. And together we gain increasingly accurate understanding of reality. So much so that we have near total dominion over everything but each other.

    WHY WE NEED SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM

    In my work I am trying to correct not only pseudoscientific statements by rather silly scientists, but to counter 150 years of pseudoscience of egalitarianism brought about by the cosmopolitan enlightemnent (counter-enlightenment) by Boaz, Freud, Marx, Adorno,Cantor, Rothbard, Strauss, and hundreds of others who have sought to replace utopian christian mysticism with utopian egalitarian pseudoscience. We have incrementally suppressed all forms of crime through expansion of the common natural law. And I am attempting (i think successfully) to demonstrate how we can outlaw pseudoscience by demanding the same due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we do in the production of goods and services for the market for consumption of goods and services. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If we taught grammar, logic, rhetoric and testimony (how to warranty against falsehood), basic accounting, and micro-economics, rather than social-pseudoscience we would have as great a revolution in human achievement as we had under the development of empiricism.

    THE OBSERVER EFFECT (WIKI)

    Now, the good professor does not understand the Observer Effect. It’s not that the universe cares if we’re watching. It’s that we only seem to be able to inspect via the electromagnetic spectrum in one way or another (at present) and anything we do to make an observation (take a measurement) changes the state of the thing we measure. That’s all it means. But it seems that we cannot kill this falsehood any more than we can kill some conspiracy theories.

    Here is wikipedia:

    —“In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

    In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.

    According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”

    Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 03:17:00 UTC

  • Western Truth Vs The Lie Of Social Construction

    Aug 22, 2016 9:36am (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable) —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”— 1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth). 2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically. 3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy. 4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries. 5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries, Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued. But they correspond to reality. Because reality does not care about our values. And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward. Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies. The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization. The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible. Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood. Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods. Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds). We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm. What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness. Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons. And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list. If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual. The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are: 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)3 – external consistency (external correspondence)4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony) If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit. And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially. We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence. With truth we shall become the gods we seek. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Western Truth Vs The Lie Of Social Construction

    Aug 22, 2016 9:36am (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable) —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”— 1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth). 2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically. 3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy. 4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries. 5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries, Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued. But they correspond to reality. Because reality does not care about our values. And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward. Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies. The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization. The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible. Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood. Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods. Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds). We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm. What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness. Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons. And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list. If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual. The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are: 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)3 – external consistency (external correspondence)4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony) If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit. And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially. We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence. With truth we shall become the gods we seek. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • August Quotes

    —Part of being a man of good character is killing those that need killing for the sake of your family, tribe, and nation.”—Curt Doolittle –“The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it.”— David Mondrus —“I see the alt-right as the difference between morals and virtues. Morals being simply a set of rules that people follow and see as good, and virtues being good qualities within yourself, such as truth telling. The Alt-right is the first political movement in generations to have Virtue at its core. Because we’re the first political movement in generations to tell the truth.”—Dylan Bailey —” 1) The old republican party:evangelicals 2) The democratic party:anarchists (violence) 3) The new republican party:disenfranchised males “— Curt Doolittle —“Members of good families want nationalism, members of bad families universalism – in other words, they want a better family than made them.”–Curt Doolittle —“God is a hedge by the irresponsible against the failures of the self, providing absolution consistent with time preferences, and an excuse not to go seek achievement of their capacity.”— John Jost —“The politicians do not want us to tell the truth about Economics, politics, morality, and ethics. Because if we do they will be hung. There is no value in scale any longer. If polities are in conflict then separation is desirable. Different people need different norms and laws, and institutions to suit their levels of genetic distribution (development). This would decrease their power. We must always seek to decrease political power.”—

  • August Quotes

    —Part of being a man of good character is killing those that need killing for the sake of your family, tribe, and nation.”—Curt Doolittle –“The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it.”— David Mondrus —“I see the alt-right as the difference between morals and virtues. Morals being simply a set of rules that people follow and see as good, and virtues being good qualities within yourself, such as truth telling. The Alt-right is the first political movement in generations to have Virtue at its core. Because we’re the first political movement in generations to tell the truth.”—Dylan Bailey —” 1) The old republican party:evangelicals 2) The democratic party:anarchists (violence) 3) The new republican party:disenfranchised males “— Curt Doolittle —“Members of good families want nationalism, members of bad families universalism – in other words, they want a better family than made them.”–Curt Doolittle —“God is a hedge by the irresponsible against the failures of the self, providing absolution consistent with time preferences, and an excuse not to go seek achievement of their capacity.”— John Jost —“The politicians do not want us to tell the truth about Economics, politics, morality, and ethics. Because if we do they will be hung. There is no value in scale any longer. If polities are in conflict then separation is desirable. Different people need different norms and laws, and institutions to suit their levels of genetic distribution (development). This would decrease their power. We must always seek to decrease political power.”—

  • A Critique of Philosophy

    A CRITIQUE OF PHILOSOPHY: AN ANALYSIS OF IDENTITY AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEMS OF RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY VS EMPIRICAL SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM (very juicy good stuff in this post) We demonstrate that we consider our lives our property (we retaliate gainst loss of monopoly control over them). We demonstrate that we consider our bodies our property (harm). We demonstrate that we consider our actions our property (liberty). We demonstrate that we consider our mates, offspring, and kin our property (kin selection). We demonstrate we consider what we have homesteaded (found), made (transformed), or obtained by trade (acquired) our property. We demonstrate that we treat those things in which we have obtained an interest in as our property(physical commons). We even demonstrate that we treat our norms, traditions, institutions, and myths as property in which we hold an interest (behavioral commons). And at present, there is conflict over, and we demonstrate an interest in information about us (privacy – although this appears to be inversely status driven). James Ragsdale posted questions on identity, (and I work on this problem a bit), which asks: —“Would you convert your brain to a digital version (still located in your skull), or upload your brain (to a computer), in order to escape death and achieve a longer conscious life (or a potential immortality)? Would that upload be you?”— Now, my first reaction is the pseudoscientific term ‘to be’, which conflates experience, action, observation, and intention. This single question form is the origin of most nonsense (pseudoscientific) questions that appear philosophical but are just word games created by mixing the point of view: intentional, experiential, objective action, and observation. The verb to-be is a cheat word that allows the speaker to force suggestion into the arugment on behalf of the audience which creates confusion over the question, rather than over the problem itself. Next we see this question: —“A replicator reconstitutes you on Mars, but leaves the original you on Earth. Would you say that you exist on Earth and on Mars? “— Like the use of the word ‘is’, the word ‘you’ conflates your physical body, the memories others have of your actions, the informational records of your actions, your memories of your thoughts and actions, and the value you hold (property) in monopoly access to the memories of your observations, thoughts, and actions. So again, as is common in philosophy, which like religion, was developed as much to AVOID the truth (manners, ethics, morals and law), as it was to assist us in investigating the truth WITHIN the limits of manners, ethics morals and laws, this phrasing is a play on words that invokes suggestion (informational subsitution by the audience), by the use of the conflationary term “you”. Today’s equivalent in the financial sector avoids casting blame. Today’s equivalent in political speech is political correctness. But why does philosophy maintain ancient forms of deception, and do philosophers fear the truth? Lets continue with identity and see if we can answer that question a little further on. WHAT DO WE REFER TO IDENTITY? I treat the statement ‘identity’ as an error that conflates: – Demonstrated Status and Self-Perception-of-Status, – Methods of decidability that we use to generate status and self-status for others and ourselves (demonstrations of contribution to group commons). – Titles (‘Credit’. Or records of ownership to status-producing goods, ideas, narratives, and memories) – Reputation (records in memory) of your behavior good and bad. – Branding (our value to others) was much more important in history when marginal differences in knowledge were limited, and things like young eyesight and hearing, or mature strength, or maturing fertility, or family members provided us with value – because knowledge either rarely existed or was rarely difficult to discovered if someone else possessed it. QUESTION 1: IDENTITY IS IN FACT, PROPERTY? Identity is then an instrument of status measurement? So just as we could not measure the world without formulae, we could not measure and pursue status without identity? QUESTION 2: MEMORIES ARE PROPERTY ? Anyone fully knowing our mind eliminates our ability to negotiate with others, and knows our full catalogue of sins. This is even worse than problems of experience (inter-personal), reputation(gossip), and privacy (records), because it extends to our un-published(not-acted-upon) thoughts (free associations, dreams, fantasies, and thoughts of punishment and retaliation (memories). Now sometimes it would be wonderful to have a twin with whom you shared identical interests. But at other times, depending upon one’s mental class (how many negative impulses you wrestle with), this can be information that we would not want others to know. (The Stoic Mind would be everyone’s friend in that world so much so that we would teach it as necessary as non-violence, and adherence to the law.) Or like privacy we would understand that all of us do silly things and none of us are free of sin, and as such these are not sins that we should ostracize over, but bad manners not for action in the commons. (The dating site that had members published is nothing more than a video game from all but .001 percent of users. Just as unfortunately social media is a simulation – a video game for many.) But since ‘you’ existentially are the record of your actions observed by others, then you and your clones are no more than twins, once your memories, experiences, and interactions fork. Unless you can reintegrate those experiences you remain individuals. But what happens to your ‘property’ when you’re cloned is somethingn else, isn’t it? QUESTION 3: THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY? I see this error throughout philosophy, which has been damaged by multiple separate movements: 1) the original greek idealism which failed to account for costs, and sought uniformity in excellence, rather than judgemental truth. 2) The Christian ethic, it’s idealism which failed to account for costs, and sought uniformity in submission rather than judgemental truth. 3) The middle-class idealistic signaling of victorian virtues which sought to imitate aristocratic airs (who did not admit to financial weakness). Victorian manners. 4) The Marxist-socialist utopian program which sought to invert this entire aristocratic history by demonizing such differences through various forms of critique, and the consequential postmodern (Christian Puritan) adoption of these techniques by the mainstream culture as an attempt to circumvent the frictions and political conflict created as heterogeneous people were no longer forced into the aristocratic order, natural law, the absolute nuclear family, individual productive responsibility, and concentrated in urban areas where normative tribalism is tolerable because of reduced interdependence. Is philosophy just an antique method of deception, an arcane set of ‘manners’, where we can adhere to comforting ritual and learn a little bit without ever having to encounter the truth, where that truth might very likely provide us in the personal and social domain, like science in the physical world, answers we prefer not to have to face, deal with and act differently becasue of? THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF TRUTH We can, for example, suggest that this is the purpose of philosophy over science, just as there remains a difference between religion and philosophy: Religion -> Philosophy -> Science -> Truth. Wherein Religion constrains our thought to the moral but not rational, Philosophy constrains our thought to the rational but not possible (the physical – including costs), and science in the past concerned itself with the physical but not costs. And where truth abandons the fear of the last of our religious idealisms: COSTS. I find that through use of three extensions of philosophical argument: 1 – Operationalism: expression language that demands non-conflationary point of view (action), and therefore test of existential possibility; 2 – Costs and Full Accounting (avoidance of the frauds of i-suggestion, and ii-selective representation of information); and; 3- Objective Morality ( demand that all transfers are fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary, and limited to externalities of the same criteria); The distinction between Religion, Philosophy, Science, and Truth is eradicated, as are the distinctions between all investigatory disciplines other than whatever subset of causes we are seeking to study. And that almost all philosophical utterances and argumetns are asked as archaically, perhaps erroneously, (and perhaps dishonestly) as the philosophy considers truth claims under religious mysticism, and as the scientist considers truth claims under philosophical justificationism, and as the ‘Testimonialist’ (what I do) considers pseudoscientific statements by so-called ‘social scientists’ who if anything do not practice science. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine AUGUST 22

  • A Critique of Philosophy

    A CRITIQUE OF PHILOSOPHY: AN ANALYSIS OF IDENTITY AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEMS OF RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY VS EMPIRICAL SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM (very juicy good stuff in this post) We demonstrate that we consider our lives our property (we retaliate gainst loss of monopoly control over them). We demonstrate that we consider our bodies our property (harm). We demonstrate that we consider our actions our property (liberty). We demonstrate that we consider our mates, offspring, and kin our property (kin selection). We demonstrate we consider what we have homesteaded (found), made (transformed), or obtained by trade (acquired) our property. We demonstrate that we treat those things in which we have obtained an interest in as our property(physical commons). We even demonstrate that we treat our norms, traditions, institutions, and myths as property in which we hold an interest (behavioral commons). And at present, there is conflict over, and we demonstrate an interest in information about us (privacy – although this appears to be inversely status driven). James Ragsdale posted questions on identity, (and I work on this problem a bit), which asks: —“Would you convert your brain to a digital version (still located in your skull), or upload your brain (to a computer), in order to escape death and achieve a longer conscious life (or a potential immortality)? Would that upload be you?”— Now, my first reaction is the pseudoscientific term ‘to be’, which conflates experience, action, observation, and intention. This single question form is the origin of most nonsense (pseudoscientific) questions that appear philosophical but are just word games created by mixing the point of view: intentional, experiential, objective action, and observation. The verb to-be is a cheat word that allows the speaker to force suggestion into the arugment on behalf of the audience which creates confusion over the question, rather than over the problem itself. Next we see this question: —“A replicator reconstitutes you on Mars, but leaves the original you on Earth. Would you say that you exist on Earth and on Mars? “— Like the use of the word ‘is’, the word ‘you’ conflates your physical body, the memories others have of your actions, the informational records of your actions, your memories of your thoughts and actions, and the value you hold (property) in monopoly access to the memories of your observations, thoughts, and actions. So again, as is common in philosophy, which like religion, was developed as much to AVOID the truth (manners, ethics, morals and law), as it was to assist us in investigating the truth WITHIN the limits of manners, ethics morals and laws, this phrasing is a play on words that invokes suggestion (informational subsitution by the audience), by the use of the conflationary term “you”. Today’s equivalent in the financial sector avoids casting blame. Today’s equivalent in political speech is political correctness. But why does philosophy maintain ancient forms of deception, and do philosophers fear the truth? Lets continue with identity and see if we can answer that question a little further on. WHAT DO WE REFER TO IDENTITY? I treat the statement ‘identity’ as an error that conflates: – Demonstrated Status and Self-Perception-of-Status, – Methods of decidability that we use to generate status and self-status for others and ourselves (demonstrations of contribution to group commons). – Titles (‘Credit’. Or records of ownership to status-producing goods, ideas, narratives, and memories) – Reputation (records in memory) of your behavior good and bad. – Branding (our value to others) was much more important in history when marginal differences in knowledge were limited, and things like young eyesight and hearing, or mature strength, or maturing fertility, or family members provided us with value – because knowledge either rarely existed or was rarely difficult to discovered if someone else possessed it. QUESTION 1: IDENTITY IS IN FACT, PROPERTY? Identity is then an instrument of status measurement? So just as we could not measure the world without formulae, we could not measure and pursue status without identity? QUESTION 2: MEMORIES ARE PROPERTY ? Anyone fully knowing our mind eliminates our ability to negotiate with others, and knows our full catalogue of sins. This is even worse than problems of experience (inter-personal), reputation(gossip), and privacy (records), because it extends to our un-published(not-acted-upon) thoughts (free associations, dreams, fantasies, and thoughts of punishment and retaliation (memories). Now sometimes it would be wonderful to have a twin with whom you shared identical interests. But at other times, depending upon one’s mental class (how many negative impulses you wrestle with), this can be information that we would not want others to know. (The Stoic Mind would be everyone’s friend in that world so much so that we would teach it as necessary as non-violence, and adherence to the law.) Or like privacy we would understand that all of us do silly things and none of us are free of sin, and as such these are not sins that we should ostracize over, but bad manners not for action in the commons. (The dating site that had members published is nothing more than a video game from all but .001 percent of users. Just as unfortunately social media is a simulation – a video game for many.) But since ‘you’ existentially are the record of your actions observed by others, then you and your clones are no more than twins, once your memories, experiences, and interactions fork. Unless you can reintegrate those experiences you remain individuals. But what happens to your ‘property’ when you’re cloned is somethingn else, isn’t it? QUESTION 3: THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY? I see this error throughout philosophy, which has been damaged by multiple separate movements: 1) the original greek idealism which failed to account for costs, and sought uniformity in excellence, rather than judgemental truth. 2) The Christian ethic, it’s idealism which failed to account for costs, and sought uniformity in submission rather than judgemental truth. 3) The middle-class idealistic signaling of victorian virtues which sought to imitate aristocratic airs (who did not admit to financial weakness). Victorian manners. 4) The Marxist-socialist utopian program which sought to invert this entire aristocratic history by demonizing such differences through various forms of critique, and the consequential postmodern (Christian Puritan) adoption of these techniques by the mainstream culture as an attempt to circumvent the frictions and political conflict created as heterogeneous people were no longer forced into the aristocratic order, natural law, the absolute nuclear family, individual productive responsibility, and concentrated in urban areas where normative tribalism is tolerable because of reduced interdependence. Is philosophy just an antique method of deception, an arcane set of ‘manners’, where we can adhere to comforting ritual and learn a little bit without ever having to encounter the truth, where that truth might very likely provide us in the personal and social domain, like science in the physical world, answers we prefer not to have to face, deal with and act differently becasue of? THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF TRUTH We can, for example, suggest that this is the purpose of philosophy over science, just as there remains a difference between religion and philosophy: Religion -> Philosophy -> Science -> Truth. Wherein Religion constrains our thought to the moral but not rational, Philosophy constrains our thought to the rational but not possible (the physical – including costs), and science in the past concerned itself with the physical but not costs. And where truth abandons the fear of the last of our religious idealisms: COSTS. I find that through use of three extensions of philosophical argument: 1 – Operationalism: expression language that demands non-conflationary point of view (action), and therefore test of existential possibility; 2 – Costs and Full Accounting (avoidance of the frauds of i-suggestion, and ii-selective representation of information); and; 3- Objective Morality ( demand that all transfers are fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary, and limited to externalities of the same criteria); The distinction between Religion, Philosophy, Science, and Truth is eradicated, as are the distinctions between all investigatory disciplines other than whatever subset of causes we are seeking to study. And that almost all philosophical utterances and argumetns are asked as archaically, perhaps erroneously, (and perhaps dishonestly) as the philosophy considers truth claims under religious mysticism, and as the scientist considers truth claims under philosophical justificationism, and as the ‘Testimonialist’ (what I do) considers pseudoscientific statements by so-called ‘social scientists’ who if anything do not practice science. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine AUGUST 22

  • Propertarianism for the Practical

    By William Butchman —“My chief interest in Propertarianism is practical. I want to know the truth so that I can use it to help my people. I am not interested in the truth outside of my genetic self interest. I am not a good man attempting to do good in the universe. I am a selfish man who selfishly loves his people. In exactly the same way I would use any new weaponry to defeat our enemies, I will use Propertarianism to defeat them. I don’t want our people to be the Good Guys. I want our people to rule. I seek nothing more than our Sovereignty over every domain that we can master.”—

  • Propertarianism for the Practical

    By William Butchman —“My chief interest in Propertarianism is practical. I want to know the truth so that I can use it to help my people. I am not interested in the truth outside of my genetic self interest. I am not a good man attempting to do good in the universe. I am a selfish man who selfishly loves his people. In exactly the same way I would use any new weaponry to defeat our enemies, I will use Propertarianism to defeat them. I don’t want our people to be the Good Guys. I want our people to rule. I seek nothing more than our Sovereignty over every domain that we can master.”—

  • Overview of Propertarianism’s Main Themes

    OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM’S MAIN THEMES Quick Note Turned into a Post. If you watch (1) the intertemporal division of perception, (2) the intercultural division of perception (circumpolar people), and (3) listen to this podcast (civilizational strategies); And if you catch that consistently across the personal, interpersonal, national, and civilizational strategies, that I CONSISTENTLY try to draw your attention to the three possible means of governance (coercion): religion/gossp/ostracization, trade/remuneration, and law/order/violence, you will begin to see the pattern that I work with that is VERY DIFFERENT from the idealism of ‘equality’ or even near equality. And if you then grasp that all human intuition, mind, emotion, reason, exists for the simple purpose of acquisition. And our intuitions vary only be reproductive strategy(gender) and our desirability(class). And that our emotional reward system is nothing more than evidence of changes in the state of property. And that we act to acquire property in toto. And that we negotiate for acquiring what we desire to fulfill our strategy. And that we signal by a thousand means in order to improve our negotiating position. And if you are enough of a philosopher to grasp that I divide categories of argument into the equivalent of increasingly articulate mathematical disciplines. (see my hierarchies of argument) – and we use them to honestly, dishonestly, wishfully, foolishly, and rarely truthfully, use them to negotiate with one another. And if you then you bring in the various dimensions by which I ask we test propositions (testimonialism’s six dimensional tests of due diligence necessary for warranty of propositions), And that the only way we make use of information across all our perceptions, is when we cooperate (Trade) voluntarily. And then that we can ‘calculate’ together fastest, most competitively, if we make use of (1)natural, judge-discovered, common law, jury, (2) a market for reproduction (marriage and family), (3) a market for the production of good and services in support of the market for reproduction, (4) and a market for the production of commons. And that we have domesticated mankind through incremental suppression of parasitism thereby enforcing production. And that we have only now to expand our suppression of parasitism to counter the development of media, so that we prevent propaganda and deceit in every walk of life. Then you have social science as I describe it in Propertarianism. (Natural Law), and the solutions to the majority of current problems. Stop lying, stop parasitism, and stop involuntary association, and that’s what it takes. My next series of thought will be criticisms of the attempt to preserve the monopoly of territory on the continent by the federal government. And I will continue to work on religion while I do that.