Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • We are the gods.

    There is no god, but Men – Men of Truth , Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Maneuver. We are the gods. That is why the liars, the weak, the ignorant, the incompetent and the unsovereign had to invent false gods – to oppose us. With the unification of horse, wheel, bronze, maneuver, oath, and sovereignty, we invented the means by which to bend man, beast, and nature to our will or break them all to pieces. The religions were invented to create false gods for the weak, to substitute for the Aristocracy of the real. Our heroes, demigods, and gods teach, assist, or interfere, but never can they defeat us. In stead, we seek to unseat and replace them. For weak gods have no stay against the minds of men.

  • The only possible closure is categorical, internal, external, operational, consi

    The only possible closure is categorical, internal, external, operational, consistency and coherence, including limits, parsimony and full accounting – meaning falsification against reality. Argumentative rationalism isn’t closed. Hence why it’s the hide of sophists and theology.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 20:33:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994676771349032961

    Reply addressees: @Noblesm85

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994665016854040576

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noblesm85

    @curtdoolittle The scientific method and falsification are also reliant upon constructivist rationality- which is the product of consensus (irrational) thought- and furthermore, is predicated on the axiom that one can, or ever will, be able to understand the universe.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994665016854040576

  • 1) No they are not The scientific method says only that operational construction

    1) No they are not The scientific method says only that operational construction (existential possibility) and logical construction (internal consistency) and external correspondence (empirical observable evidence), limits, parsimony and full accounting must survive.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 20:29:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994675918969933824

    Reply addressees: @Noblesm85

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994665016854040576

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noblesm85

    @curtdoolittle The scientific method and falsification are also reliant upon constructivist rationality- which is the product of consensus (irrational) thought- and furthermore, is predicated on the axiom that one can, or ever will, be able to understand the universe.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994665016854040576

  • THE INCOMMENSURABILITY OF EMOTIONAL VS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY We often Make the mi

    THE INCOMMENSURABILITY OF EMOTIONAL VS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

    We often Make the mistake of assuming that all but a very small percentage practice intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) – or even are capable of it. Intellectual honesty requires extraordinary agency that is available only to a tiny fraction of the population.

    The majority are capable of and practice emotional honesty and dishonesty. And that is the best that they can manage.

    Cognitive solipsism is impossible for their majority of the heavily female biased to escape, just as cognitive autism is nearly impossible for our majority of the male biased to escape. The difference being that solipsism vs autism serve experiential and interpersonal vs empirical and political ends.

    We both use language, but because one is speaking emotively and experientially and the other empirically and inter-temporally, there is no communication occurring and no chance of reasoning occurring.

    Hence why it is almost always fruitless to debate with one another unless we possess the same agency.

    In the example, the woman who’s arguing is demonstrating 1) hyperbolic straw manning, 2) disapproval, shaming, gossiping rallying rather than consequentialism, 3) deep solipsism lacking reflection, 4) and R-selection bias so deeply pre-cognitive that judgement not possible because commensurability is not possible . … I won’t even continue.

    We must Love such people, and take their emotions at face value. But if we cannot debate intellectually honestly and empirically then we cannot debate at all. Emotions are merely expressions of preference, they are undecidable (and irrelevant).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 16:26:00 UTC

  • Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confir

    Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them. He stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (“The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 14:29:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994585245491040257

    Reply addressees: @KennethBuff @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994584823061721089

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @KennethBuff @sapinker People vote POWER given the CONDITIONS of competition. That’s why Democracy works for selecting priorities in a homogenous polity but not choosing differences in a heterogeneous polity, and why there is so much friction between American ‘tribes’.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/994584823061721089

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @KennethBuff @sapinker People vote POWER given the CONDITIONS of competition. That’s why Democracy works for selecting priorities in a homogenous polity but not choosing differences in a heterogeneous polity, and why there is so much friction between American ‘tribes’.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/994584823061721089

  • Philosophy for Grownups

    https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/19/philosophy-for-grown-ups/
    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWNUPS (repost) 1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing. 2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral. 3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation. 4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY. 5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not. 6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity. As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Philosophy for Grownups

    https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/19/philosophy-for-grown-ups/
    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWNUPS (repost) 1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing. 2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral. 3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation. 4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY. 5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not. 6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity. As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Are You Sure You Really Want Such a Debate or Discussion?

    I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a debate or discussion? What if you will lose, or find out that you’re wrong? What if you will lose or find out that you’re wrong badly? What if you have over-invested and built your self confidence, understanding of the world, or your identity on something that is absurd, or impossible, or naive? In a universe of complex causal density, where humans are subject to vast opportunities, have disparate interests, are able to make choices, an have every incentive to make choices in their interests, and because of this they have every reason to defect from any form of cooperation that is other than opportunistic, it is very easy for each of us to begin with a premise, or value judgement, or assumption (or a set of them) and justify a presumed good by asking people to conform to our ideas given some abstract end, rather than supplying ideas that take advantage of their opportunities, interests, and incentives at every choice along the way. Every person thinks he or she has some particular ‘if only’ insight that will solve society’s problems, but that’s only because they have not modeled the conditions and individual choices with the presumption that people will choose whatever is in their interest ,not the idea’s interests, at all times. Or put very simply: we must build normative and institutional methods of governing the humans we have, not the one’s we wish we had. And as far as I can see, throughout history, this means producing rules that do not interfere with seizure of opportunities for fulfillment but only suppress opportunities for doing so by means others will object to sufficiently to seek restitution or punishment. Just because you can figure out an itinerary for getting to Rome, doesn’t have anything to do with whether the tourists will choose your route or another’s. It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to have such conversations. If you’re seeking confirmation it’s pointless. If you seek to test your ideas that’s something else. In my experience almost no one at all is capable of doing so. It’s far less than one percent of people. Its probably in three positions right of the decimal.

  • Are You Sure You Really Want Such a Debate or Discussion?

    I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a debate or discussion? What if you will lose, or find out that you’re wrong? What if you will lose or find out that you’re wrong badly? What if you have over-invested and built your self confidence, understanding of the world, or your identity on something that is absurd, or impossible, or naive? In a universe of complex causal density, where humans are subject to vast opportunities, have disparate interests, are able to make choices, an have every incentive to make choices in their interests, and because of this they have every reason to defect from any form of cooperation that is other than opportunistic, it is very easy for each of us to begin with a premise, or value judgement, or assumption (or a set of them) and justify a presumed good by asking people to conform to our ideas given some abstract end, rather than supplying ideas that take advantage of their opportunities, interests, and incentives at every choice along the way. Every person thinks he or she has some particular ‘if only’ insight that will solve society’s problems, but that’s only because they have not modeled the conditions and individual choices with the presumption that people will choose whatever is in their interest ,not the idea’s interests, at all times. Or put very simply: we must build normative and institutional methods of governing the humans we have, not the one’s we wish we had. And as far as I can see, throughout history, this means producing rules that do not interfere with seizure of opportunities for fulfillment but only suppress opportunities for doing so by means others will object to sufficiently to seek restitution or punishment. Just because you can figure out an itinerary for getting to Rome, doesn’t have anything to do with whether the tourists will choose your route or another’s. It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to have such conversations. If you’re seeking confirmation it’s pointless. If you seek to test your ideas that’s something else. In my experience almost no one at all is capable of doing so. It’s far less than one percent of people. Its probably in three positions right of the decimal.

  • The Incommensurability of Emotional vs Intellectual Honesty

      We often Make the mistake of assuming that all but a very small percentage practice intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) – or even are capable of it. Intellectual honesty requires extraordinary agency that is available only to a tiny fraction of the population. The majority are capable of and practice emotional honesty and dishonesty. And that is the best that they can manage. Cognitive solipsism is impossible for their majority of the heavily female biased to escape, just as cognitive autism is nearly impossible for our majority of the male biased to escape. The difference being that solipsism vs autism serve experiential and interpersonal vs empirical and political ends. We both use language, but because one is speaking emotively and experientially and the other empirically and inter-temporally, there is no communication occurring and no chance of reasoning occurring. Hence why it is almost always fruitless to debate with one another unless we possess the same agency. In the example, the woman who’s arguing is demonstrating 1) hyperbolic straw manning, 2) disapproval, shaming, gossiping rallying rather than consequentialism, 3) deep solipsism lacking reflection, 4) and R-selection bias so deeply pre-cognitive that judgement not possible because commensurability is not possible . … I won’t even continue. We must Love such people, and take their emotions at face value. But if we cannot debate intellectually honestly and empirically then we cannot debate at all. Emotions are merely expressions of preference, they are undecidable (and irrelevant).