Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552919534 Timestamp) You CANNOT f–k with math or prop for the same reason you CAN f–k with statistics and current jurisprudence. Ask questions to falsify your opinions. Don’t stand in front of me making assertions that make me call you stupid. I don’t want to call you stupid. I want you to ask “how does p make that possible?’

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552840376 Timestamp) Propertarian Speech means every man a sherriff – it’s the OPPOSITE of postmodern speech where every woman is a liar.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553015342 Timestamp) —“Propertarianism. It’s not removing subjectivity but revealing it.”—Moritz Bierling

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553009664 Timestamp) INSIGHT by Brandon Hayes —“Curt, I am in full agreement with your statement: (quote) “..there are no premises we can claim are true only meaningful, for the purpose of commercial, financial economic, legal, and military discourse.” Then on the basis of positivist epistemology, which you acknowledge has no access to ontological truth, you proceed to contradict yourself by making a whole set of ontological truth claims such as “the universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.” These are your subjective philosophical value judgements. They are not inescapable deductions implied in the premises of science. Thus your reply is a performative simply confirming and illustrating the validity of everything I wrote.”—Prem Prayojan I appreciate your insights in these matters; however, I think you have taken Ps position and pushed it a step further than needed (than possible; than we do). –“The universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.”– Saying these things are true isn’t to posit them as ultimate truth claims [these are half truths] and all truth (half or not) must be coped with. [Curt correct me if I’m off base] –CURTD– You’re correct in principle, in that 1) Truth Proper (Ideal Truth), is unattainable for other than the reductio and therefore irrelevant. 2) that the best we can do is achieve truthfulness (testimonial truth), and that no matter where we are in a spectrum of achieving sufficient completeness that we might SATISFY the DEMAND for INFALLIBILITY (what we mean when we say something ‘is true’), we must cope with the supply of infallibility (truth) that we have before us. Given TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. INTUITION: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553009066 Timestamp) BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE SAID IT by Brandon Hayes I’m under the impression and understand the beauty of P to be this: by removing personal subjectivity (asymmetric preference) from human interaction [by subjecting it to P law; replacing it with calculation] Emotions and meaning are properly solved for (via the best plausible outcome). This is because P solves for the optimal interaction (cooperation; reciprocity). P says (calculates, proves) what’s false (wrong); thus to be avoided OR bad (immoral unethical) to be punished (or left undone). By, removing, punishing and limiting the bad. ALL possibilities to GOOD are opened [and taken more often as we close doors to the “bad”]. It leaves preference and decisions about pursuits to HUMANS (hence P can’t be done by AI and is resistant to take-over). Only humans can make the calculations P suggests. People seem to think P must say more than it does about the way things are or ought to be; but the brilliance of P is its parsimony. — CURTD — Correct. And this is the problem i face, the law faces, and science faces. We say only that which is false. It is up to those others to decide, from that options remain, what is GOOD and not FALSE. So for those with great psychological, emotional, intellectual, and material, agency for whom adaptation to any given ‘good’ is relatively easy does little for the vast majority for whom movement with a herd of similar interests is their only available means of survival. If I must PROPOSE a religious structure (I will do so) as a rough outline for others to create upon, then I will. But even doing that is merely ADVICE. That is different from math (measurement) science (falsification), and law (truth). The narrative will and must forever be a means of unifying behind an hypothesis of the good.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553015342 Timestamp) —“Propertarianism. It’s not removing subjectivity but revealing it.”—Moritz Bierling

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553009664 Timestamp) INSIGHT by Brandon Hayes —“Curt, I am in full agreement with your statement: (quote) “..there are no premises we can claim are true only meaningful, for the purpose of commercial, financial economic, legal, and military discourse.” Then on the basis of positivist epistemology, which you acknowledge has no access to ontological truth, you proceed to contradict yourself by making a whole set of ontological truth claims such as “the universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.” These are your subjective philosophical value judgements. They are not inescapable deductions implied in the premises of science. Thus your reply is a performative simply confirming and illustrating the validity of everything I wrote.”—Prem Prayojan I appreciate your insights in these matters; however, I think you have taken Ps position and pushed it a step further than needed (than possible; than we do). –“The universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.”– Saying these things are true isn’t to posit them as ultimate truth claims [these are half truths] and all truth (half or not) must be coped with. [Curt correct me if I’m off base] –CURTD– You’re correct in principle, in that 1) Truth Proper (Ideal Truth), is unattainable for other than the reductio and therefore irrelevant. 2) that the best we can do is achieve truthfulness (testimonial truth), and that no matter where we are in a spectrum of achieving sufficient completeness that we might SATISFY the DEMAND for INFALLIBILITY (what we mean when we say something ‘is true’), we must cope with the supply of infallibility (truth) that we have before us. Given TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. INTUITION: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553009066 Timestamp) BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE SAID IT by Brandon Hayes I’m under the impression and understand the beauty of P to be this: by removing personal subjectivity (asymmetric preference) from human interaction [by subjecting it to P law; replacing it with calculation] Emotions and meaning are properly solved for (via the best plausible outcome). This is because P solves for the optimal interaction (cooperation; reciprocity). P says (calculates, proves) what’s false (wrong); thus to be avoided OR bad (immoral unethical) to be punished (or left undone). By, removing, punishing and limiting the bad. ALL possibilities to GOOD are opened [and taken more often as we close doors to the “bad”]. It leaves preference and decisions about pursuits to HUMANS (hence P can’t be done by AI and is resistant to take-over). Only humans can make the calculations P suggests. People seem to think P must say more than it does about the way things are or ought to be; but the brilliance of P is its parsimony. — CURTD — Correct. And this is the problem i face, the law faces, and science faces. We say only that which is false. It is up to those others to decide, from that options remain, what is GOOD and not FALSE. So for those with great psychological, emotional, intellectual, and material, agency for whom adaptation to any given ‘good’ is relatively easy does little for the vast majority for whom movement with a herd of similar interests is their only available means of survival. If I must PROPOSE a religious structure (I will do so) as a rough outline for others to create upon, then I will. But even doing that is merely ADVICE. That is different from math (measurement) science (falsification), and law (truth). The narrative will and must forever be a means of unifying behind an hypothesis of the good.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553022779 Timestamp) PILL CLARITY. 😉 by Greg Hamilton Blue (BP) is narrative, … Red(RP) is reality, … … Black(BP) is nihilism, … … … White(WP) is hope. Hope for the future: WP. Being realistic about the situation: RP. If you’re pointing out the reality: RP Selling nihilism: BP Acknowledging the system will fail is just RP.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553032075 Timestamp) —“You come up with these pronouncements (and label them “natural law”) as if they were objective laws of the universe requiring no further debate. Seriously, death by fire?”—Dennis Spain Thats because you haven’t walked thru one of my arguments and tried to refute it. Everyone tries to make general criticisms. But very few people throw CASES at me. And cases TEST theories. So go ahead and try.