Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Can The Truth Be A Commons?

    (Interesting)

    —“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

    [L]et me state this clearly:

    “The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.” 1) How does truth telling exist? The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law. 2) How does truth exist? I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative. So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons. That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed. 3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall. There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • CAN THE TRUTH BE A COMMONS? (Interesting) —“Truth telling is commons, but trut

    CAN THE TRUTH BE A COMMONS? (Interesting)

    —“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

    Let me state this clearly:

    “The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.”

    How does truth telling exist?

    The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law.

    How does truth exist?

    I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative.

    So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons.

    That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed.

    So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall.

    There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 14:58:00 UTC

  • AMERICAN WEALTH (from elsewhere) American prosperity is determined by the follow

    AMERICAN WEALTH

    (from elsewhere)

    American prosperity is determined by the following:

    1) the anglo-german proclivity for paying the high personal cost of truth-telling in all walks of life – it is the greatest tax we pay. It is also unique in the world. if you aren’t germanic, or at least northern European, you’re probably irreparably corrupt and a liar and you don’t even realize it.

    2) the anglo common law which rapidly adapts to new forms of parasitism as quickly as they are invented.

    3) the anglo (non-continental) common law bias, such that we permit everything and resolve conflicts later in court, vs the continental bias that requires approval from some authority in advance in order to prevent conflicts in court.

    4) Prior to 1963, the requirement for membership in the absolute nuclear family prior to engaging in reproduction.

    5) The sale of a new continent to new homeowners using fiat credit.

    6) The sale of consumer goods to homeowners previously incapable of home ownership.

    7) The USA’s use of it’s inherited British empire (navy and bases) to set terms of international finance and trade.

    8) The stock market which creates a lottery effect for innovators.

    9) It’s stable currency

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 12:10:00 UTC

  • CRITICISM IS GOOD (Please don’t be afraid to criticize my work. I really don’t l

    CRITICISM IS GOOD

    (Please don’t be afraid to criticize my work. I really don’t like ad hominems and ridicule and I see it as my moral duty to maintain the informational commons by defeating ridicule – it’s gossip after all. It’s feminine deceit. It’s ‘Critique’ (CoC). It’s the favorite tool of the Marxist after obscurantism and justificationism. It’s cosmopolitan Libertarian. It’s not aristocratic. So when you criticize me I owe you a favor for your care, and I must protect your contribution to the commons. But when you attack me or engage in ridicule you have broken the agreement of parley in which I agree to abandon violence and deceit in order to construct a mutually beneficial statement of truth. And I am therefore no longer engaging in cooperation with you. In fact, I have the moral obligation to defeat and punish you for your immorality. )

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 05:36:00 UTC

  • “This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-s

    —“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness

    Bruce,

    1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

    If i conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

    If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

    I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.

    2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.

    3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

    Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 03:45:00 UTC

  • MAN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE IS JUST EXISTENCE. You see, th

    MAN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE IS JUST EXISTENCE.

    You see, the statement ‘full of truth’ is an existentially impossible statement. The universe exists. Truth must be stated. Error imagination, wishful thinking, bias and deception can be removed from our utterances. But our utterances can never ‘be full of truth’. Truth is constructed. It does not exist prior to its construction. Truth is a product of man’s action. Everything else is just existence.

    (Why did that take 2500 years?)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 03:06:00 UTC

  • Sorry: Propertarianism is an Amoral and Objective Language – And That Can Be Emotionally Unsatisfying.

    [I] know that you want to feel emotionally vindicated, and that you want to vent your frustrations when conducting an argument, but the fact of the matter is Propertarianism and Testimonialism are constructed amorally (( amoral adjective “not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.” )) so that all moral propositions can be objectively described, and all moral questions are objectively decidable. Propertarianism(ethics) and Testimonialism (epistemology) let you construct and win arguments wherein the other party is using various means of deception in order to obscure their advocacy for thefts. So, assuming you’re right (and conservatives are usually right, even if argumentatively incompetent) then using Testimonialism and Propertarianism will allow you to win arguments. But unlike simple (cheap) quips, they are expensive arguments to construct and require that you have a bit of skill. And if that isn’t enough. Well. You don’t have reason to feel good, or to win.  We leave that to the liars and theives.

  • Sorry: Propertarianism is an Amoral and Objective Language – And That Can Be Emotionally Unsatisfying.

    [I] know that you want to feel emotionally vindicated, and that you want to vent your frustrations when conducting an argument, but the fact of the matter is Propertarianism and Testimonialism are constructed amorally (( amoral adjective “not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.” )) so that all moral propositions can be objectively described, and all moral questions are objectively decidable. Propertarianism(ethics) and Testimonialism (epistemology) let you construct and win arguments wherein the other party is using various means of deception in order to obscure their advocacy for thefts. So, assuming you’re right (and conservatives are usually right, even if argumentatively incompetent) then using Testimonialism and Propertarianism will allow you to win arguments. But unlike simple (cheap) quips, they are expensive arguments to construct and require that you have a bit of skill. And if that isn’t enough. Well. You don’t have reason to feel good, or to win.  We leave that to the liars and theives.

  • POPPER IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR GOD – HE FAILED TOO (from elsewhere) (good piece) B

    POPPER IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR GOD – HE FAILED TOO

    (from elsewhere) (good piece)

    Bruce. (All)

    You’re a good guy. A moral man. But you do realize that Popper failed to complete his program – even the falsificationary program – and most of what he says is pseudoscience with moral loading?

    If you cannot describe something as a series of actions, then you are engaging in pseudoscientific double speak – an error of aggregation not dissimilar from the averaging of averages. Popper’s double-speak is not as artful or complete as Marx’s pseudoscientific double speak (dialectic), but it is equally untruthful: claiming parsimony that it does not contain.

    We may indeed face a kaleidic future but that’s immaterial. We divide our perception, cognition, knowledge and labor, and constantly try to outwit the course of events in a deterministic non-sentient universe, for our benefits: consumption. That future needn’t be known by anyone, and cannot be. It is not the individual perception of the future that matters, but the collective outwitting of the course of events, so that we can seize the difference and call it ‘production’.

    It’s true that justificationism is dead. But Critical Rationalism was incomplete. Critical Preference is a logical, not empirical statement. In fact, it appears at least, that we can choose which avenue to pursue by that which requires the lowest cost. This is identical to the means nature uses. So the least cost route appears to be the most efficient route we can ever know. So it appears that critical preference is a moral argument – a bit of advice – rather than logical or empirical argument.

    I am fairly certain at this point that you are somehow desperately trying to find a source of supernatural wisdom to replace the supernatural wisdom of scripture. But it’s not to be found in Popper. Popper and his entire generation of thinkers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences. All of them. Because they were logically attached to enlightenment egalitarian, equalitarian, universalism: an advocacy of monopoly if there ever was one.

    We can never stop problem-solving. Never cease innovation. Never cease competition. We can never ‘relax’ and fall upon past wisdom. Because submission is not available to man. We are the only gods we know of in this universe. Those we imagine are merely those we aspire to be. And by that aspiration we achieve.

    If there is any devil, any fallen god, any fallen angel, it is the one who whispers that there is but one god. If there is one evil scripture it is equality. If but one sin it is submission. We divide our perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy and labor, and by exchange we collectively compute that which is necessary to persist.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 05:49:00 UTC

  • Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)

    (second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

    The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”