And here's a beautiful example of that:
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
Tuesday, June 27, 2023
ChatGPT explains AI in simple terms
Something I came across this morning, someone asked ChatGPT to explain AI in simple terms. Here's an image of the question and response, click for bigger:
I found this helpful as it makes clear "general" AI is to this point something only biological intelligence is capable of.
Raising the question: can technology be made to assume the properties of biology? It's a good question, here are some impediments: tech is not self generating, it did not come into being in the biological way we still only dimly understand.
The fact biology exists at all continues to be greatly underappreciated.
AI's data base comes exclusively from the sum total of the data that exists on the internet, which is a product of human thought and creativity. If the human species were to extinct what would happen to tech? It does not have biological drive force, but it might have an artificial imitation of it. Would that be sufficient for AI to exist and continue in the absence of humans?
The basic problem is AI does not have a real subconscious where the biological instincts are housed. It has no real "drive". It has no real instinctual fear of death, which is a primary driver of biological activity. It has no biological sex drive, it cannot "fall in love", and be "driven" to mate and procreate.
It does not have innate reproductivity drive, which are the consequence of billions of singular biological interactions we had nothing to do with "showing up" on Earth to begin with.
My take is the human idea of "general AI" is just another example of the human tendency toward hubris, the basic idea that technology trumps biology as the force to be reckoned with.
Don't look now, the 6th mass extinction has begun in human populations too. It is a reset forced by nature that will eventually cause humans to re-recognize we are the offspring, not the creator, of nature and biology.
Thursday, June 15, 2023
Your government at work - Dr McCullough testifies to Pennsylvania Senate
Everything Dr McCullough and the thousands of other doctors and health scientists who are speaking out about this will come to the surface eventually. I happen to have been tracking all this very closely from the beginning because of my interest in health and health science. One thing I saw very quickly was the mass media most people go to, MSNBC and FOX, were beyond useless, and I stopped wasting my time watching them. It was like watching sports, everyone had their favorite team. There was no team!
What were some of the worst things done.
Censorship...research papers that had hard data on all the various conditions of the pandemic and it's treatment were not being published by several of the well known medical journals. FINALLY that seems to have stopped, and the truth will slowly spread to the general population.
To the best of my knowledge this is the first time in the history of science that legitimate research was broadly censored.
Governments controlled by the pharma/vaccine industry obviously want the ability to mandate entire populations give over personal control of what goes into their bodies. These are the same governments that receive the revenues needed to prevent debt bloated bureaucracies from crashing. Those revenues come from the triad of big food, big pharma, and the health care industry in general.
If these industries spent 5% of their revenues establishing country wide facilities and programs that inform the public about the true cause of health, which is mostly what we eat and drink, and STARTS with diet, the need for health care would shrink drastically.
A program like that mounted by government would help the general public realize the "foods" they are addicted to were THE cause of 90% of their health problems. It's not that complicated: ingest toxins and we are GUARANTEED to lose our health.
And I do not think those industries were "evil" at the outset. We had great faith in technology to make our lives better in every way. We've learned however the further from nature we get with our diets the worse our health gets.
Well those outsized revenues would also shrink drastically. These industries were not evil at the outset, at this point it is questionable.
Dr McCullough's recent testimony to the Pennsylvania Senate:
Saturday, June 10, 2023
Evidence on covid restrictions is in, a meta analysis on the benefit to harm ratio.
In the video linked below Steve Hanke of John Hopkins is one of three authors of a meta-analysis of the benefit to harm ratio of lockdowns during the pandemic. Hanke is a well known highly respected economist most publicly known perhaps as the US government's point man for quelling hyperinflations around the globe as they arise.
Hanke's wiki page is extensive, noting among other things he and another John Hopkins professor founded the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health and Study of Business Enterprise.
We also see in the first section of the wiki page Hanke has been "accused" of spreading disinformation about the covid-10 pandemic.
Humm. Well I would love to see Hanke on an open forum debate stage with his accusers, but I'm pretty sure if invited they would not accept.
We've entered the upside down world of double speak where fascist propogandists accuse truth tellers of misinformation.
And the most disturbing thing about the way the pandemic was handled has made clear western governments are shifting toward fascism, and are now completely dependent on the massive revenues of big pharma, and subservient to big pharma. Now this wouldn't be so bad if BigP were at the very least a benign force, but as many have known for decades this is far from the case.
Perhaps the one good that has come out of the way the pandemic was handled is a much larger proportion of western populations have woken to the fact BigP has morphed into a large scale malevolence enforcing fascist controls on entire populations via their governmental and legislative puppets.
And the question that has to be asked: can we realistically do anything about it?
As we ponder that question let's listen and watch as Professor John Campbell steps us through the meta-analysis.
Thursday, May 18, 2023
A trip through the history of obesity
I became curious about the history of obesity and came across two papers that seemed to disagree with each other in a single but I think important way:
A trip through the history of obesity
And,
The Origins of the Obesity Epidemic in the USA–Lessons for Today
I decided to write to the author of the latter paper, and then decided to make it a blog post:
Greetings,
I hope you don't mind comments from the public. I am writing to question your thesis that fat and carbs had little to do with obesity in the USA. I'll get right to the point, the history of obesity goes way back:
Of course there was no gluttony among hunter gatherer populations, it began with civilization and wealth. The basic instincts of hunter gatherers are still with us (biological evolution is gradual), and then as now are to seek pleasure, avoid pain, and conserve energy. The couch potato set-up. The basic problem is the profusion of calories (fats and carbs both) that occurred with the technologies of modern farming, refrigeration, and transportation, combined with modern "conveniences" that allow unconscious free reign to the instincts.
However I agree that modern ultra processed diets are additionally very health destructive caused by adding high levels of toxicity to the standard diet and lifestyle of too many calories per unit of work. How could anyone not agree with that? Yes obesity is a disease that degrades and shortens life, but it is primarily the toxins in ultra processed food-like substances that have created the epidemic of chronic diseases in young and old, obese and non-obese alike.
So the many modern metabolic diseases are an overdetermined problem, caused by the proliferation of calories, the technologies of convenience and comfort, and the addition of high levels of the extreme toxicities of ultra processed foods.
How did I come to this perspective? I'm 71 years old. At age 50 I was told by two cardiologists I had advanced CVD and the odds of near term heart attack were high. Instead of modern medical interventions I began consuming the literature of what might be called "the cause of health". The first eye opener was Caldwell Esselstyne's book "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease ''.
Following that were the hundreds of published works of the increasing number of MDs who were regularly reversing chronic diseases, primarily with a simple change of diet to whole foods, with additional lifestyle changes. They raise their voices to the extent possible, but are not promoted by the powerful healthcare industry that profits from chronic diseases, and is the biggest part of GDP by a large margin. It's mostly unconscious turf war biases that cause pharmacology to even go so far as to sabotage these health promoting voices.
I'll mention one other book that was helpful to this layman, "The Pleasure Trap: Mastering the Hidden Force that Undermines Health & Happiness" written by Doug Lisle and Alan Goldhamer of "True North" fasting clinic in Santa Rosa, CA, which has been saving and changing lives since 1984. Alan Goldhamer probably knows more about medically supervised fasting than any human in history.
We agree on the essential piece, whole foods are critically important for health. We may disagree however in that I feel the current chronic disease epidemic is an overdetermined problem.
Best regards and keep up the good work!
Dave King
Sunday, May 14, 2023
The "Invented Here" Bias
If you've studied bias at all you will have come across the invented here bias. This is where an individual or group has put effort and time into something/anything, and unconsciously resist realizing it was a waste of time/effort, or worse, not only that, but the effort has destructive consequences.
Then, there can also be compound bias, where "invented here" is not only destructive, but also generates revenue. What should we call this bias? I like the way Upton Sinclair expressed it: "It's difficult to get a man to understand a thing when his salary depends on his not understanding it". I guess we'll call it the the salary bias.
We've had a huge example of this compound bias staring us in the face for decades now. Slowly, perhaps, more of us are beginning to see it.
And what I'm speaking of specifically is how this compound bias has obscured a problem in so-called modern medicine. I'll also rush to say there is a lot of good in modern medicine, but of course that fact additionally works to obscure the more unfortunate aspects.
And they are huge. And what are they specifically?
Widespread massive damage to human health is caused by a single idea, which is that pharmacology is the cause of health.
When in fact, unfortunately, modern pharmacology is on the whole quite health destructive. What do I mean by this? We are "issued" lifetime prescriptions for chronic health "diseases" that are easily, quicky, and efficiently reversed by one thing alone - a simple change of diet.
When I say simple, I mean logistically and structurally. If we are one of the many millions of victims of modern pharmacology, those of us with lifetime prescriptions, all we have to do is go to our kitchens and throw all the food there away (get out the trash can!), and then start over by re-populating the kitchen with the right foods.
How do we know what those foods are? I'll oversimplify, but only by a bit. They are only whole foods. Let's define that a bit further: whole foods have one ingredient, yep it's that one thing that food is. Those foods will also be fresh, and in their raw state, and we will have to consume them before they go bad. Which limits us to a very tiny fraction of all the "foods" in a modern grocery store.
How inconvenient! On the other hand, how important is being well and feeling good? I'm not talking about the "feeling good" that is a result of the spikes and crashes we get from alcohol and sugar/fat rich desserts. That is addiction, a form of misery.
So, let's expand a bit, but still limit ourselves to things that are still only one ingredient, as one example, the single foods that can be put into a can with absolutely nothing else. These can be difficult to find, a can of beans probably has salt added, which is not a food, or a can of corn has sugar added, also not a food. There are "flavor enhancers", and addictive, and thus, health destructive.
Does that characterization seem extreme? Well it's not, a big part of the health crisis of today is we have come to think of addictive (and toxic) over-flavored "foods" as normal. With a few notable exceptions, "whole foods" do not have intense flavors. The one that comes to mind for me as I write is pineapple. It's a whole food that is very good for us with a strong flavor.
Whole foods have natural sugars and salts inherently.
The easiest fastest way to cut down on the modern addictive health destructive over-flavoring practices is to eliminate refined sugars and salts from our diets. It takes a minute or two to realize how addicted we've become to over-flavoring.
"Damn, this tastes bland!"
It only takes a week or two to realize how much better we feel eating this way. And only a bit longer than that to realize the real flavors in whole foods have been obscured by intense flavors for most of our lives!
And then to begin to realize how good whole foods can taste.
So... no salt and sugar is best, and very light with the herbal seasonings.
Also, when we combine too many different foods into one recipe the different flavors tend to average toward "grey" (using a color mixing analogy), and strong seasoning will be required. Eat more simply and deliciously by choosing the whole foods that are freshest and most flavorful, and not too many at once.
There is even a practice some of the healthiest people do called mono-meal, where only one fresh and ripe whole food is consumed in one meal. This actually gives some of the benefit of fasting, where the goal is to give the body a rest from the energy spent on digestion. Which may not sound like much of a big deal, but the effects of fasting are profound. The energy not being diverted to digestion is huge, and that energy then goes to "house cleaning" the body, which is also known as "the body heals itself".
And it's easier to digest one food at once, and particularly healthful if we also choose the foods that combine the quality of easy digestion with nutrient density. Fruits and leafy green leaves are especially good in that regard, and in fact a meal of fruits and green leaves is a pretty good combo. Have you ever had fresh mango on chopped romaine? It's delicious, particularly once past the cravings for ultra-flavored "foods".
Eat as much of this sort of thing as you want. This is called ad libitum feeding, and the healthiest diets are based on it. Eat till you're satisfied.
And the combinations are limitless.
We never have to stop learning. I believe one of the greatest qualities a human can have is curiosity. And to borrow a corresponding quality from cats, nine lives.
Many things in life become so common we stop seeing them. That does not mean they are not there.
Post pandemic - there are excess deaths around the world
Dr John Campbell has been reporting on the excess death data coming from global government agencies that collect health data.
There is an average baseline of deaths in the population that varies a bit by season. It accounts for normal ongoing average death rates due to car accidents and seasonal flu and age related causes. When the death rate spikes above that average something else is going on. And something else is going on right now. The odd thing is media isn't saying a word about it, and state health agencies aren't doing the data analysis that would answer the question: what is the cause of this? The most obvious question that should be analyzed, I would think, are the excess deaths occurring mostly in vaccinated or unvaccinated populations?
After all, the CDC had to admit that mRNA vaccines failed on the two things vaccines are supposed to do for us, prevent infection and stop transmission. Now the backstop narrative combined with that admission is the vaccines did at least lower the death rate, and millions more would have died without the global vaccine campaigns.
On the other hand, isn't it also obvious if they had worked as promised vastly fewer deaths would have occurred? We don't know that number since vaccines that worked did not occur, but is it unreasonable to think that number would have been vastly lower than the "deaths prevented" number trotted out by bid pharma?
And how do we know that number is accurate to begin with? The data served up by bid pharma is provided by bid pharma, and the agencies captured by bid pharma. And the very bedrock principle of science, the principle that makes it science to begin with, is to exclude bias in both the construction of the model under test, and in the analysis of that data. We have both of those biases contaminating the data we get on all things pandemic.
Well let's admit there's an inherent problem in much of how medical "science" is done, no group can afford to pay for it other than bid pharma (which includes captured "health" agencies and legislative and regulatory bodies). So that makes it OK for bias in model under test and data analysis?
Not if you want to call it science!
Well, let's ignore that little problem and call it science anyway. And as we heard zillions of times during the pandemic, let's all "follow the science!".
No problem, except it isn't science.
It's very unfortunate, but we cannot trust any of the "health advice" coming from bid pharma these days. Actually, make that the past two decades, but who's counting. And bid pharma has control of the entire health care complex. Which in total compromises the biggest chunk of the entire US economy.
The corruption in this situation has become so very obvious in the past few years even non-health nuts are beginning to see it.
Orwell is no longer knocking on the front door, we have welcomed him into our homes, and he is ensconced on the living room sofa.
Hello George! What took you so long!
Why are "we collectively" so resistant to seeing the obvious in this case? It is too shocking and disturbing to contemplate. In fact I don't even want to publish this post to my reader group (which is small by choice anyway). Why? All but a very few got all the jabs, and the power of suggestion could well be counter-productive in this situation. So what do we do?
I guess George is here to stay.
Dr. Campbell shows us current data on the excess death data in this recent video report:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)