Jun 17, 2023·edited Jun 17, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
My reply to that tweeted Ng video: "I can see why you want to work toward consensus. However, especially in today's climate, there is always the strong possibility that such consensus will not only be politically driven but will lead to censorship and even demonization of those who disagree." That was me trying to be diplomatic :)
Deliberately trying to achieve a consensus sounds a lot like voting on reality. No matter how the vote goes, reality doesn't give a shit—it will keep doing its own thing.
Why can these people not see that it's not unusual for paradigms (consensus) to be upset? In another comment someone brought up Wegener and continental drift. I watched that paradigm get turned upside down in real time. Today we're slowly seeing a turnaround about saturated fat in nutrition. Then there was Copernicus, of course, and innumerable other examples through history.
Dogmatic thinking is a kind of religion and has no place in science. Anyone who believes in something should at least pause to consider "What if it's wrong?"
I don't think most people have a valid concept of truth. They can say the word and seem to be using it to describe "reflects reality," but they don't conceive of it that way, they really conceive of truth as "is regarded as correct." And there's no good filter to keep that model of thinking out of science, so most scientists don't have a concept of truth.
Of course the very definition of heterodoxy is Rupert Sheldrake. (A good talk by him here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-_LdejFnXM, also hosted by a pretty good heterodox channel / project mostly focused on cosmology and some mythology/history.)
Reminds me of the meteorologist Alfred Wegener who published his idea of Plate Tectonics in 1912 only to be shunned by the field of Geology for decades. Then many years later, the physicist Henrik Svensmark postulated that cosmic rays have the greatest effect on Earth's climate...also shunned as a heretic. Scientific dogma is a tough hegemony to crack.
Wegener is an excellent example, and one that I often use to illustrate paradigm upsets. As a teenager I became interested in continental drift, which at the time was considered fringe. Then through the 60s I watched in real time as it became accepted and then consensus.
All very good points. To me, what it comes down to is the elite aversion to risk. Scientific consensus is prized by policy makers because it makes one option, following the consensus, virtually risk free. No one actually believes the crap that they spew but if you can get some sort of scientific consensus recommending that you do what you wanted to do anyway, then you can do it risk free. This is why government funded science has been an utter failure. Science has not really existed since WW2(Well it was decelerating until about the early '90s and we can say that since then it has stopped and is probably actually accelerating in a negative direction now.) due to the explosion of government funding and control. Quest for truth + Money = Consensus(on what the money thought to begin with) This is why everybody gets their news and their science from independent substackers now.
Imagine if it was not suppressed by consensus, and we had to face a frank discussion about the downsides of EMF technologies (Which might have pretty big impact on fertility and in that way a big impact on short-lived, fecund prey species eg most insects). Why, we might have to roll back mobile connectivity to the 2G! People would riot over not being able to watch porn on the toilet.
I am skeptical of the 'DNA as an antenna' theory. DNA might(I emphasize the might) conduct along the helical axis but it is not conduction like through metallic bonding nor will it find a lot of open valence orbitals like in doped semiconductors. The electrons will, I think, have to move through the positive dipole of valence P orbitals which is not by any means a great or well defined conductor.
I had never thought of it as a conductor until I tried to follow Goodman's theories that you linked to, because it is organic, with differing charges in a rather complicated pattern. I see DNA conducting something like a polymer which is not a good conductor at all. BTW I don't think attempts to describe it as an antenna by using single strands(not in a double-helix with the I think it is As and Gs binding the ladder together) would be very realistic as they would totally change the van der Waals interactions and probably also change the freedom of movement of the valence orbitals, which the position and interaction of next neighbor P orbitals would almost certainly determine the conduction.
In short, I don't believe it and don't see much there to prove it. DNA damage comes from ionization or from some form of ablation as far as I know, which is why we should be very concerned with this where higher frequency radiation will sometimes cross over into being ionizing but much less with lower power signals. While I have plenty of problems with all of the radiation that we surround ourselves with I don't think that this is legit.
The concern about exposure to emf can be about damage at a tissue level. The way TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation) can cause severe brain damage by means of an oscillating electric field in brain tissue caused by an oscillating magnetic field. Proximity to the source, field strength, frequencies, all factor in. I think an examination of effects of 4G and 5G is justified.
DNA doesn't have to be a good conductor to see effects, it just has to be a sufficiently good conductor to get effects from various electrical fields and also for the conduction to have effects on transcription. I think that bar is sufficiently cleared by the available evidence.
There is also evidence that living near high power lines results in increased rates of some cancers. To me it seems that the effects arise from either a disruption of local, endogenous electromagnetic fields or from disruption of some sort of "attunement" to natural, background fields. A lot of normal, body processes relies on electric fields, for instance wound response or T-cell migration (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53898-5). Power lines also impact honey bees, and likely most insects: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26185-y/
It is a pretty understudied area, because it is mostly suppressed, so we have no idea about the actual extent of the harms. Just like we have no real idea about the harms of vaccination.
I don't buy it. If the mechanism doesn't make sense then statistical links are meaningless. The mechanism doesn't make sense to me. I guess, fundamentally I don't understand why a system that functions and thrives in solar radiation and the earth's em field would be wrecked by one that is orders of magnitude less energetic.
I tend to agree and recall that people were claiming that there were little BlueTooth or WiFi receptors in the vaccine (Gene Therapy treatment for SARS-CoV-2). FFS, where are they going to get 1mW of energy of?
Anyway, for the most part DNA is rolled up in histones and are not unrolled until needed, which surely must complicate any analysis of any putative effect of 3G, 4G, 5G or WiFi.
Just ignore chatGPT WOKE-AI, and roll your own un-filtered AI;
This post explains how to get the Code off of GIT-HUB to run your own chat-GPT and how to obtain the META model-weights 7B ( 10gb file ) torrent
The chat-gpt that is public, is filtered, they hired $2/hr labelers in Africa to filter in&out all non-woke query's & answers, so you end up with a AI that refuses to talk about COVID alternatives treatments.
The simple fact is all of US AI pioneers types need to not only refuse to go along with this bullshit, but we need to make sure that kids&public get access to non-woke AI, so at least they're not 'mentally crippled'.
If I were andy Ng, I would go back to CHINA and get the fuck out of USA and quick
The problem is that chat-GPT is woke-homo, now given that 90% of SV bay-area is homo-cucks, ok I can dig it, but getting everybody to join the fairy-ring at stanford is crazy
Then while andy-ng taught a few 100 engineers AI in the past +5 years at Stanford, when andy was in China last 3 years, he taught 10,000 engineers at alibaba & tencent, you really think that all those chinese engineers will embrace woke homo-cuck??
USA is like 10% of the INTL AI biz, and chatGPT is what it is, a consumer product for the gullible "Kardashian Class" of USA public, you think LEO & MIL is using chatGPT? Hell no, they're using the un-filtered version.
Yes, singular thought "Head Girl" where every child can be taught to march to the same drummer;
Not an accident that the training of open-ai chatGPT came out of facebook&twitter posts, that's its extent of human knowledge, so at best its a 'kardiashian chat bot', but then add woke-filtering and its a woke-kardashian chat-bot
Jun 13, 2023·edited Jun 13, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
This is yet another great post, my term for all of this is 'establishment science', a combination or part of 'the cathedral' as Curtis Yarvin would put it, of politics, media, academia, and big business who work to maintain and control the status quo. Publicly they strive to create the 'illusion of concensus' for _all_ science, to facilitate it as a de facto religion for society, imposing it's values, and usurping democracy and personal freedom, and so elevating its ideology above humanity.
Bureaucracy is the lynchpin of all of this, interestingly it appears to be monolithic from the outside but internally can look like monarchies with kings and power brokers and various factions vying for both control of their kingdom and influence over other kingdoms.
Possibly the value sets are ways for dominant elites to signal which how consensus should appear at any given time
As far as AI goes, ChatGPT beyond strictly technical matters looks to me like a powerful and controllable AI version of Bruce Chatwin's 'head girl' that optimises for conscientiousness and conformance. For example if you ask it about covid vaccines it will surely defer to the WHO, and NOT mention the individualised risk/benefit decision making that is the cornerstone of medical treatment.
Edited to add:
The above does look pessimistic, but one way we can work against it is to almost totally ignore the media, and use our time instead to enjoy nature and community where we can. Then seek out a more balanced and nuanced viewpoint with the help of dissidents excluded from the mainstream, BUT carefully validate our beliefs with knowledge and reason and respectful debate. :-)
Jun 13, 2023·edited Jun 13, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
You really nailed it, even if by no more than a medium length blog post. There does seem to be a scientism priesthood, that would like to speak ex cathedra just as Hinton seems to advocate. Maybe this got rolling with Gallo's press conference on isolating the "AIDS virus", kicking off science by press release.
I worked for NASA as a physicist working on infrared remote sensing all during the 90s when "global warming" was the consensus. Did I believe we were going to incinerate? No, neither did my principal investigator. We were trying to build technology to explore the role of cloud cover in the thermal budget of the Earth. That technology is now widely used in handheld thermal IR imagers. Quite possibly we were able to obtain research funds because the high priests of scientism had declared a worry-bandwagon for climate heating. But good came of it in the form of atmospheric science and IR sensing technology despite the idiotic consensus-driven "science" panic over climate.
HINTON like von-neuman, and turing are all part of the globo-homo AI agenda
Andy Ng is NOT; Also in CHINA homo-grooming is banned, and gay role-models in MSM is banned, only in USA/EU western world is this obsession of homo-woke homogenization
Remembering the great Phil Hartman. 'Now I am just a caveman who was frozen in a glacier and unfroze by global warming who got a law degree from Columbia but I know that women can have penises' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzAFqrxfeY
At Wikipedia, the concept of "consensus" goes way beyond scientific topics. For everything under the sun, including politics, history, biography, and religion, the editors are in a perpetual quest to find the "consensus" of the approved literature; as interpreted by the consensus of editors, who are heavily weighted towards the paid staff of governments, agencies and corporations. Articles are then written giving the "consensus" in "Wikipedia Voice" (which is akin to the Voice of God). Other viewpoints, if they get any space at all, are relegated to "fringe" status.
The first problem with critiquing Wikipedia groupthink is that organically generated history seems full of groupthink fictions and memory holes. It's easier to untangle the prevailing Marvel Hero narrative of WWII using Wikipedia than it was with physical books, as a blunt example. So voluntary communities with reputational credit weighting seem to diminish the influence of the state, even supposing that state actors are going around with artificially heavy scores around the clock. Of course, it's not perfect...
How can any technology be for our benefit when it is owned? Science is owned. Everything is owned so the owners get to say which direction it takes and the rest of us, why do we take this and try to put lipstick on it?
Thank you for the very kind words. It is unfortunate that the second half of the essay is just copy-pasted Chipotle reviews from 2017, but hopefully this is still totally mind-blowing.
Peter Turchin writes about this in Elite Over Production, but I find this article more interesting:
https://peterturchin.com/elite-overproduction-brings-disorder/
However, it is amusing that Putin is being blamed for destroying the Elites little schemes:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/16/vladimir-putin-net-zero-britain-coal-power-plants/
My reply to that tweeted Ng video: "I can see why you want to work toward consensus. However, especially in today's climate, there is always the strong possibility that such consensus will not only be politically driven but will lead to censorship and even demonization of those who disagree." That was me trying to be diplomatic :)
Deliberately trying to achieve a consensus sounds a lot like voting on reality. No matter how the vote goes, reality doesn't give a shit—it will keep doing its own thing.
Why can these people not see that it's not unusual for paradigms (consensus) to be upset? In another comment someone brought up Wegener and continental drift. I watched that paradigm get turned upside down in real time. Today we're slowly seeing a turnaround about saturated fat in nutrition. Then there was Copernicus, of course, and innumerable other examples through history.
Dogmatic thinking is a kind of religion and has no place in science. Anyone who believes in something should at least pause to consider "What if it's wrong?"
I don't think most people have a valid concept of truth. They can say the word and seem to be using it to describe "reflects reality," but they don't conceive of it that way, they really conceive of truth as "is regarded as correct." And there's no good filter to keep that model of thinking out of science, so most scientists don't have a concept of truth.
A really, really good source of heterodox science is https://www.youtube.com/@SeethePattern/videos
Mostly focused on physics-related topics.
Like this: Ore creation through electric transmutation as an explanation of veins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXjL8-ViwEo
Of course the very definition of heterodoxy is Rupert Sheldrake. (A good talk by him here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-_LdejFnXM, also hosted by a pretty good heterodox channel / project mostly focused on cosmology and some mythology/history.)
Reminds me of the meteorologist Alfred Wegener who published his idea of Plate Tectonics in 1912 only to be shunned by the field of Geology for decades. Then many years later, the physicist Henrik Svensmark postulated that cosmic rays have the greatest effect on Earth's climate...also shunned as a heretic. Scientific dogma is a tough hegemony to crack.
"Science advances one funeral at a time."
Wegener is an excellent example, and one that I often use to illustrate paradigm upsets. As a teenager I became interested in continental drift, which at the time was considered fringe. Then through the 60s I watched in real time as it became accepted and then consensus.
All very good points. To me, what it comes down to is the elite aversion to risk. Scientific consensus is prized by policy makers because it makes one option, following the consensus, virtually risk free. No one actually believes the crap that they spew but if you can get some sort of scientific consensus recommending that you do what you wanted to do anyway, then you can do it risk free. This is why government funded science has been an utter failure. Science has not really existed since WW2(Well it was decelerating until about the early '90s and we can say that since then it has stopped and is probably actually accelerating in a negative direction now.) due to the explosion of government funding and control. Quest for truth + Money = Consensus(on what the money thought to begin with) This is why everybody gets their news and their science from independent substackers now.
Science can also be a legitimate threat to our societal structure.
For instance, the considerable evidence of the negative effects of EMF (See the notable scientist Reba Goodmans articles on it here: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Reba-Goodman-39445251)
Imagine if it was not suppressed by consensus, and we had to face a frank discussion about the downsides of EMF technologies (Which might have pretty big impact on fertility and in that way a big impact on short-lived, fecund prey species eg most insects). Why, we might have to roll back mobile connectivity to the 2G! People would riot over not being able to watch porn on the toilet.
I am skeptical of the 'DNA as an antenna' theory. DNA might(I emphasize the might) conduct along the helical axis but it is not conduction like through metallic bonding nor will it find a lot of open valence orbitals like in doped semiconductors. The electrons will, I think, have to move through the positive dipole of valence P orbitals which is not by any means a great or well defined conductor.
I had never thought of it as a conductor until I tried to follow Goodman's theories that you linked to, because it is organic, with differing charges in a rather complicated pattern. I see DNA conducting something like a polymer which is not a good conductor at all. BTW I don't think attempts to describe it as an antenna by using single strands(not in a double-helix with the I think it is As and Gs binding the ladder together) would be very realistic as they would totally change the van der Waals interactions and probably also change the freedom of movement of the valence orbitals, which the position and interaction of next neighbor P orbitals would almost certainly determine the conduction.
In short, I don't believe it and don't see much there to prove it. DNA damage comes from ionization or from some form of ablation as far as I know, which is why we should be very concerned with this where higher frequency radiation will sometimes cross over into being ionizing but much less with lower power signals. While I have plenty of problems with all of the radiation that we surround ourselves with I don't think that this is legit.
The concern about exposure to emf can be about damage at a tissue level. The way TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation) can cause severe brain damage by means of an oscillating electric field in brain tissue caused by an oscillating magnetic field. Proximity to the source, field strength, frequencies, all factor in. I think an examination of effects of 4G and 5G is justified.
DNA doesn't have to be a good conductor to see effects, it just has to be a sufficiently good conductor to get effects from various electrical fields and also for the conduction to have effects on transcription. I think that bar is sufficiently cleared by the available evidence.
There is also evidence that living near high power lines results in increased rates of some cancers. To me it seems that the effects arise from either a disruption of local, endogenous electromagnetic fields or from disruption of some sort of "attunement" to natural, background fields. A lot of normal, body processes relies on electric fields, for instance wound response or T-cell migration (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53898-5). Power lines also impact honey bees, and likely most insects: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26185-y/
It is a pretty understudied area, because it is mostly suppressed, so we have no idea about the actual extent of the harms. Just like we have no real idea about the harms of vaccination.
I don't buy it. If the mechanism doesn't make sense then statistical links are meaningless. The mechanism doesn't make sense to me. I guess, fundamentally I don't understand why a system that functions and thrives in solar radiation and the earth's em field would be wrecked by one that is orders of magnitude less energetic.
I tend to agree and recall that people were claiming that there were little BlueTooth or WiFi receptors in the vaccine (Gene Therapy treatment for SARS-CoV-2). FFS, where are they going to get 1mW of energy of?
Anyway, for the most part DNA is rolled up in histones and are not unrolled until needed, which surely must complicate any analysis of any putative effect of 3G, 4G, 5G or WiFi.
It's simple people "ROLL YOUR OWN"
Just ignore chatGPT WOKE-AI, and roll your own un-filtered AI;
This post explains how to get the Code off of GIT-HUB to run your own chat-GPT and how to obtain the META model-weights 7B ( 10gb file ) torrent
The chat-gpt that is public, is filtered, they hired $2/hr labelers in Africa to filter in&out all non-woke query's & answers, so you end up with a AI that refuses to talk about COVID alternatives treatments.
https://bilbobitch.substack.com/p/chatgpt-one-ring-to-rule-them-all
The simple fact is all of US AI pioneers types need to not only refuse to go along with this bullshit, but we need to make sure that kids&public get access to non-woke AI, so at least they're not 'mentally crippled'.
If I were andy Ng, I would go back to CHINA and get the fuck out of USA and quick
The problem is that chat-GPT is woke-homo, now given that 90% of SV bay-area is homo-cucks, ok I can dig it, but getting everybody to join the fairy-ring at stanford is crazy
Then while andy-ng taught a few 100 engineers AI in the past +5 years at Stanford, when andy was in China last 3 years, he taught 10,000 engineers at alibaba & tencent, you really think that all those chinese engineers will embrace woke homo-cuck??
https://bilbobitch.substack.com/p/chatgpt-one-ring-to-rule-them-all
USA is like 10% of the INTL AI biz, and chatGPT is what it is, a consumer product for the gullible "Kardashian Class" of USA public, you think LEO & MIL is using chatGPT? Hell no, they're using the un-filtered version.
Yes, singular thought "Head Girl" where every child can be taught to march to the same drummer;
Not an accident that the training of open-ai chatGPT came out of facebook&twitter posts, that's its extent of human knowledge, so at best its a 'kardiashian chat bot', but then add woke-filtering and its a woke-kardashian chat-bot
Who in the hell wants or needs this crap?
This is yet another great post, my term for all of this is 'establishment science', a combination or part of 'the cathedral' as Curtis Yarvin would put it, of politics, media, academia, and big business who work to maintain and control the status quo. Publicly they strive to create the 'illusion of concensus' for _all_ science, to facilitate it as a de facto religion for society, imposing it's values, and usurping democracy and personal freedom, and so elevating its ideology above humanity.
Bureaucracy is the lynchpin of all of this, interestingly it appears to be monolithic from the outside but internally can look like monarchies with kings and power brokers and various factions vying for both control of their kingdom and influence over other kingdoms.
Possibly the value sets are ways for dominant elites to signal which how consensus should appear at any given time
As far as AI goes, ChatGPT beyond strictly technical matters looks to me like a powerful and controllable AI version of Bruce Chatwin's 'head girl' that optimises for conscientiousness and conformance. For example if you ask it about covid vaccines it will surely defer to the WHO, and NOT mention the individualised risk/benefit decision making that is the cornerstone of medical treatment.
Edited to add:
The above does look pessimistic, but one way we can work against it is to almost totally ignore the media, and use our time instead to enjoy nature and community where we can. Then seek out a more balanced and nuanced viewpoint with the help of dissidents excluded from the mainstream, BUT carefully validate our beliefs with knowledge and reason and respectful debate. :-)
You really nailed it, even if by no more than a medium length blog post. There does seem to be a scientism priesthood, that would like to speak ex cathedra just as Hinton seems to advocate. Maybe this got rolling with Gallo's press conference on isolating the "AIDS virus", kicking off science by press release.
I worked for NASA as a physicist working on infrared remote sensing all during the 90s when "global warming" was the consensus. Did I believe we were going to incinerate? No, neither did my principal investigator. We were trying to build technology to explore the role of cloud cover in the thermal budget of the Earth. That technology is now widely used in handheld thermal IR imagers. Quite possibly we were able to obtain research funds because the high priests of scientism had declared a worry-bandwagon for climate heating. But good came of it in the form of atmospheric science and IR sensing technology despite the idiotic consensus-driven "science" panic over climate.
Hinton scared the living s**t out of me with this:
"...much the same way as climate scientists have reached a consensus on climate change..." GAAAA!!!!
HINTON like von-neuman, and turing are all part of the globo-homo AI agenda
Andy Ng is NOT; Also in CHINA homo-grooming is banned, and gay role-models in MSM is banned, only in USA/EU western world is this obsession of homo-woke homogenization
https://bilbobitch.substack.com/p/chat-gpt-meets-hal-from-2001-im-sorry
I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from "3 billion genders are OK, but only 1 climate was OK."
Remembering the great Phil Hartman. 'Now I am just a caveman who was frozen in a glacier and unfroze by global warming who got a law degree from Columbia but I know that women can have penises' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzAFqrxfeY
At Wikipedia, the concept of "consensus" goes way beyond scientific topics. For everything under the sun, including politics, history, biography, and religion, the editors are in a perpetual quest to find the "consensus" of the approved literature; as interpreted by the consensus of editors, who are heavily weighted towards the paid staff of governments, agencies and corporations. Articles are then written giving the "consensus" in "Wikipedia Voice" (which is akin to the Voice of God). Other viewpoints, if they get any space at all, are relegated to "fringe" status.
*Spookipedia*
-----
Will always be the top result on search engines, or at least prominently featured in the sidebar.
The first problem with critiquing Wikipedia groupthink is that organically generated history seems full of groupthink fictions and memory holes. It's easier to untangle the prevailing Marvel Hero narrative of WWII using Wikipedia than it was with physical books, as a blunt example. So voluntary communities with reputational credit weighting seem to diminish the influence of the state, even supposing that state actors are going around with artificially heavy scores around the clock. Of course, it's not perfect...
How can any technology be for our benefit when it is owned? Science is owned. Everything is owned so the owners get to say which direction it takes and the rest of us, why do we take this and try to put lipstick on it?
Thank you for the very kind words. It is unfortunate that the second half of the essay is just copy-pasted Chipotle reviews from 2017, but hopefully this is still totally mind-blowing.