Darwinian dating

DarwinianDating

2019.03.25 13:12 DarwinianDating

A subreddit dedicated to dating advice for men grounded in PUA (pick up artist) theory and the science of evolutionary psychology and biology.
[link]


2020.11.07 20:42 MarkdownShadowBot Removed comments/submissions for /u/Wagwonm

Hi Wagwonm, you're not shadowbanned, but 13 of your most recent 28 comments/submissions were removed (either automatically or by human moderators).

Comments:

gbf43kz in islam on 07 Nov 20 (1pts):
I agree, you start with one God and the decide it’s the caravan raider who couldn’t perform miracles and who gave the people instructions from the devil.
gba4sdu in Christianity on 05 Nov 20 (1pts):
How do you know which man puts his penis in the other mans penis?
gb7wt0w in Jewish on 05 Nov 20 (1pts):
I’d say read the scriptures, then ignore them and follow a legalistic code where you take rabbis as prophets and hope God forgives you for your sins by offering no contrition or acts of repentance.
gav7l0q in islam on 02 Nov 20 (1pts):
This is terrible, Muslims would never do something like removing crosses from a church.
gausvpz in Catholicism on 02 Nov 20 (0pts):
More cum then man at that age
gauavmn in Catholicism on 01 Nov 20 (0pts):
Isn’t that the Catholic response?
garkjss in islam on 01 Nov 20 (1pts):
This is the fakest shit ever lol, people who arn’t Christians may not realise this but the death and resurrection of Jesus was the most important part of his ministry.
garjig5 in Catholicism on 01 Nov 20 (1pts):
So what you are saying is we need to attack Christians of another sect
gajkiiz in Christianity on 29 Oct 20 (-16pts):
I hope God blesses him to by making him a Christian, otherwise he will burn in hell for all eternity.
ga3v3vp in atheism on 25 Oct 20 (0pts):
Let’s be real here gays are defective from a Darwinian perspective. Anything else is simply religious Mumbo jumbo
fd7hwys in FemaleDatingStrategy on 05 Jan 20 (1pts):
Islamaphobe
fbi2vav in benshapiro on 21 Dec 19 (1pts):
Yes it’s the coward who confronts people in the street and not the one who uses a baby as a shield.
Nick-derangement syndrome is real people.
f4u3fey in australia on 23 Oct 19 (1pts):
As far as I can tell his crime isn’t whistle blowing it’s that he thought disclosing private and confidential information was a good idea.
And let’s face it the ATO witch hunt was an attempt to...
I'm a bot. My home is at /CommentRemovalChecker - check if your posts have been removed! (How to use)
Help us expose and stand up to social media bias and censorship!
submitted by MarkdownShadowBot to CommentRemovalChecker [link] [comments]


2020.10.29 22:38 LouwalaClough [OC] Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Expert Rank Aggregation

(TL;DR)
A weighted Markov Chain Monte Carlo method for aggregation of fantasy football expert player ranks is proposed and implemented for week 8 of the 2020 NFL season.
See algorithm in action: https://i.imgur.com/eIUXgCT.mp4
The rankings for week 8 in PPR scoring:
RB: https://i.imgur.com/6gfoJSp.png
WR: https://i.imgur.com/IoEdwud.png
TE: https://i.imgur.com/5YzU3WH.png
QB: https://i.imgur.com/S0ap8HK.png
--------------------
Introduction
The wisdom of the crowd can be as big of a blessing as the curse of the hivemind. I suspect many of us here aggregate expert opinions on weekly player performances -- either through tools like FantasyPros[1] or intuitively by cross-referencing many sources. For example, I always prefer my DST streamer to be highly ranked by a variety of experts (both here and in various media outlets). The caveat is that there are large differences in the quality of expert opinions [2]. These differences in source quality are hard to weigh intuitively and largely absent from aggregation tools. Including information on the prior success (or failure) of the expert may lead to better, more accurate weekly player rankings.
Rank aggregation has a long history of application in electoral systems that rely on preferential ballots [3,4]. Many of the developed algorithms around combining, often disparate, individual preferences rely on choosing candidates based on those which predominantly win head-to-head elections [5]. In cases where there is a single candidate that wins all pairwise runoffs, they are considered the ‘Condorcet’ winner[6]. In fantasy football rankings there is often a Condorcet winner at a few positions at the top of the rankings (e.g. Derrick Henry is considered the de facto number one running back this week by a vast majority of expert opinions). However, after the top hand-full of players, opinions can vary dramatically and lower-rank Condorcet winners become rare. Strategies built around maximizing the number of pairwise agreements between a final ranking and all input preferences, such as the Kemeny-Young method, are typically NP-hard problems and thus computationally expensive to compute [7]. As such, many rank aggregation tools rely on simply computing the arithmetic mean of ranks for each candidate. These methods while simple to understand and calculate can be biased by outliers and partial lists which make them often unfaithful to the explicit preferences of the input rankers [8].
Random sampling strategies have been proposed to combat the complexity of both brute-force and linear programming implementations of the Kemeny-Young method for rank aggregation tasks of deep lists [8,9]. These include genetic algorithms, which randomly generate many possible ranking options, and through mixing (breeding), selecting the best scoring (survival of the fittest), and choice permutation (somatic mutation), a final ranking is thus achieved in an analogous fashion to Darwinian evolution. An alternative sampling strategy is Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods which draw samples from a probability distribution and iteratively updates that probability distribution such that the next batch of samples is dependent on the current state. MCMC methods ultimately approximate a stationary distribution representing the least-error approximation of the ground truth. MCMC methods are advantageous in that they are flexible to a variety of loss functions from minimizing mean-squared error in numerical quadrature to maximizing pairwise agreements amongst expert options. Here, I implemented an MCMC method which approximates the distribution of ranks for each player that minimizes the pairwise differences across all experts weighted by the experts’ past performance.
Methods:
Accessing Expert Ranks
All expert rankings are sourced from FantasyPros.com1 per week per position for PPR scoring.
Comparing a ranked lists
The Kendall Tau correlation is used to quantify the similarity between a sampled list and an expert opinion, as well as, between expert opinions and past truths. Kendall’s Tau is formulated to be only concerned with pairwise differences and matches well with the input rankings (i.e. player A > player B; player C>player D). I will note that this performance metric differs significantly from what you will find on FantasyPros, where experts scored by a method they call an accuracy gap [10]. Myself and others have discussed issues with this method in previous posts [2,11]. My main issue with the accuracy gap method for in-season ranking is that it unduly weights accuracy of the best performing player while down-playing inaccuracy of streamers which is where the hardest part of start-sit decisions lie.
Expert Weights:
Experts are weighted by a multiplicative update rule inspired by Adaboost [12]. First experts are filtered by those providing player rankings back through 2018, allowing for at most 1 absence (Fig1). The submitted expert player rank lists are limited to a player pool based on both the simple mean consensus and for past weeks, actual player performance. This is designed to limit how much an expert is judged based on players no one would ever start (just very deep rankings) and if an expert failed to rank a player. For example, if a player was omitted by an expert but performed in the top N for that week, the player is given a rank equal to the worst-ranked player by that expert or the simple consensus for that player, whichever is higher.
All experts are initialized with a weight of 1/{number of experts}. For each past week-year, each expert incurs a loss dependent on their Kendall Tau correlation for that week-position. The experts’ weights are updated as weight_new = weight_old * (1+epsilon)^-tau, where epsilon is a hyperparameter describing the learning weight. After the expert weights are computed for each previous week, all weights are normalized to sum to 1 for each week (Fig. 2).
Approximating the Stationary Distribution
The distribution of player ranks is initialized as a uniform probability for each player for each rank. Samples of player orders are randomly drawn from this distribution and scored in a weighted fashion by their Kendall Tau correlation to all the input expert ranks. The best scoring candidate rankings are used to update the probability distribution based on the frequency of each player at each candidate ranking. This new distribution is then used in the next random sampling and the process repeated until convergence. Upon convergence, the resulting probability distribution is an approximation of player preferences which best recapitulates all experts' opinions simultaneously.
Inferring Player Rank Distribution
Given a stationary (equilibrium) distribution of the probability of each player at each rank the probability of each rank for each player must be estimated. First, the probability vector for each player is normalized to one. Second, the normalized player probability is smoothed by one-dimensional interpolation using a cubic spline. Third, a skew-normal distribution is fit to the smoothed normalized player probability distribution. The mean, mode, and 95% confidence interval of ranks for a given player is then computed from the curve fit.
Results and Discussion:
Experts Ranks
There are a number of rankers who started submitting to fantasypros.com starting in 2019 and 2020, currently, they are omitted from the rank aggregation (Fig. 1). However, this strategy still retains many of the experts who submit rankings to FFPros to this day and are those who are more necessarily more committed to the task and possibly more accurate. For example, filtering experts at the running back position retains 95 experts. If an increase in performance is attained by their inclusion, they may be added in the future.

Figure 1. Experts submitting rankings to FantasyPros.com for RBs Seen 2016 - to date.
The multiplicative update rule stratifies experts based on prior performance with increasing weight given to experts who routinely perform the best on a weekly basis (Fig. 2). As one might expect the consensus ranking given all input experts would be given a larger which than a majority of individual rankers. However, there do appear to be a number of experts who over from 2018 until now, outperform the consensus. For example, Justin Boone has maintained the highest weight since the beginning of 2019 (Fig. 3).

Figure 2. Expert weights for the running back position are updated each week beginning in 2018. The black line represents simple average consensus. Line color is weekly weight.

Figure 3. Running back weights for 2020 Week 8 starting from 2018 Week 1.

Iteratively Approximating the Stationary Distribution
Starting from a uniform distribution has the benefit of removing any bias introduced by initializing on the simple mean rank. While increasing the run time of the algorithm, it can aid in finding global minima instead of local minima. Interestingly the algorithm retains a high probability for high ranks (e.g. RB>35) for a majority of the players considered, even those who end up in the very top (e.g RB 1-10) in the final stationary distribution (Fig. 4). This is likely due to stochastic sampling early in the random walk and suggests hyper-parameters tuning of the learning rate might improve convergence time.

Figure 4. MCMC stationary distribution upon convergence for running backs during week 8 of the 2020 season.
Player Rank Probabilities
Fitting a distribution to the player rank probability distribution allows for direct access of the mean, mode, and variance for each player. Interestingly there appears to be high agreement by the majority of experts amongst many players on the week. The player ranks increase monotonically for different stretches of ranks with litter overlap in their 95% confidence intervals for ranks outside of plus or minus two (Fig.5). There is however a subset of players for which their distribution of their rank probability is high (Fig. 5. CEH). While these players are sorted by the mode of their probability distribution it appears many experts are less confident than the pack, producing long tails in the player’s confidence interval. In addition to providing confidence estimates on these players, there are a number of disagreements between the MCMC stationary distribution and simple mean consensus ranking. This is either a result of the expert weighting strategy used here or a byproduct of minimizing pairwise disagreements in player ranks. Further work will need to be done to ascertain the root cause of these differences and how beneficial they are.

Figure 5. Running back rankings produced by MCMC expert rank aggregation for PPR scoring in week 8 of the 2020 NFL season. Green dots represent more probable(mode) rank for each player, red dots represent mean of each player's rank probability distribution, and error bars represent 95% in the station distribution.

Conclusion:
This work proposes and implements an alternative method to fantasy football expert rank aggregation by using a weighted random walk MCMC process. This method offers the potential to more faithfully recover individual exert preferences and provides a direct way to incorporate past expert performance into the rank aggregation. More detailed work into how the MCMC consensus differs from the arithmetic consensus needs to be done to understand the benefits and drawbacks. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the historic performance of both methods would aid in understanding the usefulness of the MCMC consensus to start-sit decisions in fantasy football.
References
  1. Fantasy Football Rankings, 2020 Projections, Fantasy Baseball Cheat Sheets. https://www.fantasypros.com/.
  2. fantasyfootball - Ranking the Rankers - Please choose your experts wisely. https://www.reddit.com/fantasyfootball/comments/dpr8h8/ranking_the_rankers_please_choose_your_experts/.
  3. Emerson, P. The original Borda count and partial voting. Social Choice and Welfare vol. 40 353–358 (2013).
  4. Saari, D. G. Basic Geometry of Voting. (1995) doi:10.1007/978-3-642-57748-2.
  5. Lin, S. Rank aggregation methods. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics vol. 2 555–570 (2010).
  6. Tataru, M. & Merlin, V. On the relationship of the Condorcet winner and positional voting rules. Mathematical Social Sciences vol. 34 81–90 (1997).
  7. Hemaspaandra, E., Spakowski, H. & Vogel, J. The complexity of Kemeny elections. Theoretical Computer Science vol. 349 382–391 (2005).
  8. Deng, K., Han, S., Li, K. J. & Liu, J. S. Bayesian Aggregation of Order-Based Rank Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association vol. 109 1023–1039 (2014).
  9. Lin, S. & Ding, J. Integration of ranked lists via cross entropy Monte Carlo with applications to mRNA and microRNA Studies. Biometrics 65, 9–18 (2009).
  10. Fantasy Football: In-Season Accuracy Methodology. https://www.fantasypros.com/about/faq/football-inseason-accuracy-methodology/.
  11. fantasyfootball - Calculating Weekly Accuracy: pros & cons of different methods. https://www.reddit.com/fantasyfootball/comments/hytxjz/calculating_weekly_accuracy_pros_cons_of/.
  12. Freund, Y. An adaptive version of the boost by majority algorithm. Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference on Computational learning theory - COLT ’99 (1999) doi:10.1145/307400.307419.
submitted by LouwalaClough to fantasyfootball [link] [comments]


2020.10.12 07:01 chofferblower The best dating secret TRP/PUA doesn't want you to know : you DON'T NEED a GF, and are no less of a man if you don't

Hey gyals, pals and other folks !
Let's do a storytime first. As I've been trying to have a better understanding of online hate groups and extreme cultures and beliefs, I've been spending some time looking up FDS material over the past few days. There's many things to say about it, not all bad I actually realise now (tho some really are very very very very bad), but most are not relevant for this particular topic.
However, there's one particular theoretical fundamental of their whole dating strategy system that I think deserves a discussion. The idea that men need women more than they do. The whole thing is based upon that. It's based upon the idea that women are allowed more social lenience because they are the ones choosing, and we're the one chasing. It implies that we have low standards, will settle for anyone if it ends up in sex, and that women can, and in their paradigm actually should, exploit that for their benefit.
And to be honest, it infuriates me. It infuriates me so bad because its mostly true. Men in general have below sea-level standard, and are ready to put their dick into anyone they find even remotely attractive. And I don't like that.
Their explanation for this phenomenom is pretty much something you'd expect to see in TRP. Evolution. Male are sexual parasites, don't seem to have to invest much to reproduce, and it is therefor the most efficient reproductive strategy for them to have sex with the most females possible and maximise their offspring count.
Now, I could go on and debunk this idea. I could tell you that it's actually not necessarily an effective reproduction strategy, because said offspring also have to develop correctly in order to reproduce themselves, so it's not only about conceiving them. I could pin-point the fact that evolutionary pressure also selected things like oxytocin, or vasopressin, neuro-chemicals that favor bonded and care-filled relationships rather than fukboiery. I could make a memetical argument about the fact that "monogamous mythology" has been culturaly selected following Darwinian principles as it would optimise offspring survival. I could pin-point to recent researches that show the importance of a caring and healthy father not only during offspring's childhood, but also during the pregnancy, even tho it doesn't actually happen in his body. I could tell you about the studies showing that males actually take longer to recover from break-up and that celibacy affects their health harder, and I could also deconstruct those arguments by saying this might be related to a confounder.
I could make a philosophical argument, about what it is for something to feel good, and what we should do about it. I could make an evolutionary argument, about the other useful things you could do to maximise your chance at reproducting, and that focusing like a mad man on it is definitely not one of them. I could make an economical argument, about how someone could benefit from you feeling like you need a relationship, and how to imprint this belief in your mind based on social psychology.
I could, but I won't. Because I actually don't care about that. What I care about is this.
I'm a fucking homo-fabere. I'm a demented primate. My specie is bending its environement to its will like no other. My specie killed diseases, created computing, built the fucking Vatican and painted its chaptels with visions from entirely made up worlds. My specie came up with quantum theory, electronic music, existential philosophy and biotechnologies. My specie, in this very moment, is on its way to end aging, create artificial intelligence and fly into the cosmic void to colonise other planets. My specie is full of full fledged badassery. And for all I know, I could be a badass myself if I try.
So unless it's a matter of life and death, like eating, drinking and sleeping, I don't give a goddamn fuck about what biology urges me to do. If I'm a slave to biology, and I'm not happy with it, I'm gonna use every fucking loophole I can find to get where I want and check-mate it. Biology sometimes says must. But when it doesn't, when it says should, and I don't agree, I don't give a fuck. I'm not a dog. My body, my kingdom. And if I don't like the ladie's tone of voice, if she's not at least mildly interesting, if she's disrespecting me or looking down at me, I'll pay my share and leave her where she is. Simple as that. I'd rather be alone than with someone at the price of my self-respect. And I'm happy with her doing the exact same.
Yes, sex feels good. Yes, an emotionaly fulfilling relationship feels good. And I'm willing to invest ressources to have it. Hell, guess what, I agree with FDS argument that dating for women is especially scary (considering date rape and ambient misogyny), and that it can be a display of good intent and faith to pay for the first date at a reassuring, safe, public place. I'm up for a 40 bucks first date if that helps the girl feel confortable, even tho I definitely am closer to broke than not, and going dutch is more aligned with my belief system.
But you know what else feels good and makes me happy ? Food. Friends I can depend on. Video games. Free parties. Running. Fencing. Diving. Playing the Violin. Reading good stuff. Learning interesting shit. Travelling to beautiful places. Driving my car at midnight on countryside roads listening to Transe music. Creating value. Being useful. Being self-sufficient. Being myself. Growing. All of those also feel fucking good. You probably are experiencing them already. It's up to you to choose what is enough. In my opinion, a girlfriend shouldn't be part of it. It should be a bonus, a nice to have. It's something you have limited control over anyway, and it's something that is difficult to get really right, and midly interesting when it's not, so it's setting yourself up to failure to depend on it. And as I said, I don't give a fuck about biological urges. If your libido is high, masturbate. Practice mental visualisation masturbation, so you won't even need porn to jack off and get the sweet endorphin rush. Food is a need. Water is a need. Happiness is a need. A girlfriend is a nice to have.
Don't lower your standards. You're worth the effort you put on yourself. Don't let anyone tell you the opposite, using any words. Your body, your kingdom. Biology is such a shitty master, your hand rubbing your penis can trick it into getting you high. Life is way too short to waste any time. Focus on yourself. If you date someone, do it because you genuinely like them, not because you need them, because you don't.
submitted by chofferblower to exredpill [link] [comments]


2020.10.10 01:01 tjn50351 Economic Symbiogenesis

Visuals
KEYNOTE - Below includes an original proof that for every rational individual, The Von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Function is bounded from above. The proof starts below: “Proof Reductio ad Absurdum”.
Economic Symbiogenesis
Thomas J Novak
Disclaimers 1. I wish to contend that Micro and Macro Economics each constitute a hidden branch of evolution. To be clear, I’m not arguing for an analogy, ​I’m arguing each branch is an evolutionary process; and with this comes the mathematical framework needed to scientifically ​objectify success (major goal for every Capitalist). 2. The quantitative aspects are partially rooted in Game Theoretic Evolution. I do not expect this theory will garner majority support or ​understanding. It is only an esoteric theoretical ideal; but it is my hope that this will gradually change until one-day we have a Utopia. 3. The mechanism is voluntary through rational self-incentives. It advocates for a change in perspective for optimal decision making purposes. 4. Dollars and other fiat currencies are still completely necessary. Fiat currency constitutes a valuable technology that eliminates the need for ​bartering, yielding considerable savings in life’s prime asset - TIME. 5. I apologize to the reader in advance for the long essay. I hope it is "worth" your time.
Key Conclusions
Present day humanity is full of capitalists that have the right idea but are missing some key math. This is causing them to behave inefficiently in the context of their own self-interests. Ideal Capitalism is Pareto Optimal and should be practiced by all; and it should lead to maximal economic growth. I also wish to conjecture that a new Nash Equilibrium is available to our race: Perpetual peacetime under the individual Pareto Optimal Strategy of Ideal Capitalism as every individual looks to maximize their self-fortune and troll farms are voluntarily dismantled. If this sounds too good to be true, note that it very well may have been for all of human-history save the last few decades. Key developments are nuclear weapons and the internet. Discussed more in the last section.
Introduction
The "science" of Economics is not yet a science. Don't get me wrong - micro-economics is just about there; but macro-econ is a totally different story. Some call it “The Dismal Science” because it makes many quantitative claims that are inconsistent with empirical data. An example is the claim that John Rockefeller’s fortune could be made comparable to contemporary fortunes by adjusting his dollars for inflation and real growth. In fact only adjusting his hours for real growth does the trick.
In general macro-econ has a zero-sum-dollar-centric structure that does not allow for input of things like maternity and child rearing - two fundamentally "valuable" human activities. Another problem is that planetary-wide risks like war, (and that which is assured by "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD)), are not naturally measurable in dollars.
Some concepts from financial mathematics and science can generalize economic measurements into a co-compatible theory that almost seems too simple to be necessary. Basic results agree with common sense in every way. Some conclusions are so obvious the calculation seems pointless. Others might be beyond common sense similar to the notion that the Earth on which one walks is anything but flat. The former supports credence for the latter. All examples of human stupidity supports a need for all of it.
Ideal Capitalism
Most powers past through present can be thought cold, "calculating”, and self-interested; and most presently embrace association with Capitalism. Paradoxically, human history, (even recent), is a litany of fighting and stupidity and hurt feelings. These are inefficiencies from the Capitalist perspective, so something must be wrong with these “calculations”.
The argument will start with a Micro-Economic exercise intended to provide quantitative framework to measure just how unCapitalistic many present-day capitalists are acting, by unitizing all their actions in a scientific manner. Any Capitalist wishing to maximize their net-worth will be made more materialistically rich simply by maintaining complete indifference about others, understanding the entire picture, and trusting numbers. Wall Street can confirm this is its goal.
“Complete indifference” means precisely 0 concern for anything other than material-self-worth and 100% concern for material-self-worth. Nonzero concern for others, positive or negative, is suboptimal since it distracts from the objective of maximizing self-worth. Footnote 1: “Others” does not include the friends and family category. All intentional altruism can be represented easily by having those individuals' interests summed and grouped together so as to be viewed as part of the Capitalist’s “self-interest”. All reasoning forward is unaffected by how many friends and family are now implied to be included.
The results can empower all decision makers to calculate in the only way possible: with actual mathematics. The numbers will sometimes disagree with intuition; but the numbers will always be correct. The optimal strategy will hardly change except for sufficiently wealthy individuals. The proof can be seen empirically by back-testing the model in history on the domain in which all success is measured: quality-weighted-time (qwt). The definition of qwt will leverage Game Theoretic Evolution and is discussed more below.
Some conclusions may be counterintuitive similar to the way natural selection favored Symbiogenesis; but maximum profit calls for absolute “trust” in numbers above all else - exactly as exhibited in microbial evolution. Any call for “selfless” acting resulting in benefits to others is strictly incidental; and any less is unselfishly selfish in that it renders this inefficient capitalist less wealthy than maximally possible.
Step 1 - Any political bias about aiding others should be deleted. An “Ideal Capitalist” expresses precisely 0 concern for others and what others think - no more, no less. As long as an individual is correctly acting in their own best interests, they are acting as a Capitalist. Contra-positively one can claim to be a capitalist and act inefficiently against their own interests as many “capitalists” will be shown are doing today. I suggest a new term “Maximalist” to mean an Ideal Capitalist and avoid the need for case sensitivity.
Step 2 - Success Spawns Success. What is meant by quality-weighted-time? The definition comes from the only objective arbiter possible: Evolution through Survival of the Fittest. Something is “fit”, or “successful”, if it results in more quantity (Q) or more quality (q), where more quality means it produced more Quantity faster - which renders it more successful. This is The Tautology of Evolutionary Game Theory (The Tautology). For any evolutionary process, quantity is the metric which quantifies success. Quality is measured in quantity per unit of time (q=Q/t). Note that multiplying q=Q/t with t yields Q=qwt: the metric of success that necessarily satisfies The Tautology. Footnote 2: The word “tautology” is meant in the propositional logic sense. No negative connotation should be inferred.
Step 3 - How to connect economics with evolution?
Micro-economic decision strategy for trading time (t) for dollars ($), (or $ for t), amounts to a “phenotype”, (or observable trait), coded for by genetics inherited or mutated, and ideas learned or created. Respectively: - Inherited genetics constrain every rational human to be “risk averse”, regardless of self-perception, because natural selection favored and continues to favor risk aversion. Defined below and proven further below. - Mutated genes are almost never favorable for a human so this case will be discarded (although this force is quite powerful over quintillions of human-hours). - Richard Dawkins creatively postulated ideas to be “memes”: new evolutionarily viable packets of information, subject to selection forces, as they spread from person to person with varying levels of success overtime. Respectively gene inheritance and mutation is analogous to meme learning and creation. Furthermore the economy can be seen as a subsection of the biosphere governed primarily by evolution through forces of selection. The economy evolves through selection of both genes and memes, and memes are more abstract; but this should not change anything about the evolutionary game theory. After all humanity itself is naturally occurring, so Artificial Selection of Genes and Memes can be seen as a more complex extended phenotype coded for by the evolution of genes through Natural Selection. Any argument that “Artificial Selection” constitutes a meaningful difference from “Natural Selection” must first come to terms with the observation that humanity is itself, naturally occurring.
Step 4 - What is the definition of “risk averse”? The mathematical definition of risk averse simply requires diminishing returns to be experienced on assets like dollars. For example: an additional $1M adds less “utility” if you presently have $2B, compared to if you presently have $2M. If a person is not risk averse, then more success encourages more risky behavior. This is inconsistent with the observation that more success means one has more to lose. Therefore any risk-inclined individual cannot be an Ideal Capitalist as they will almost surely go broke gambling.
Step 5 - What is “utility”? Utility is the abstract micro-economic concept that, by definition, quantifies value. The unsettled question of how to actually do this is addressed below.
Total Utility = True Material Self-Worth = “well-offness”. All have one-to-one correspondence with each other. All are “mutually inclusive”. For example: twice the quantity of utility, by definition, means twice material self-worth; and so, the individual is exactly twice better-off. Diminishing returns do not apply to quantities of utility.
Step 6 - How to define an objective function to maximize utility? Per Wikipedia: “Consider a set of alternatives facing an individual, and over which the individual has a preference ordering. A ‘utility function’ is able to represent those preferences if it is possible to assign a real number to each alternative, in such a way that alternative A is assigned a number greater than alternative B if, and only if, the individual prefers alternative A to alternative B.”
Keynote: dollars are not material wealth, dollars buy material wealth, with diminishing returns, limited by genes, memes, and the quality and Quantity of the Marketplace (respectively qQMP).
To illustrate this, consider how rich you would be with $1T cash on Mars in the present day marketplace. Personally as an oxygen breathing Capitalist, I would view my self-worth as constituting a liability - measurable in my personal subjective frame of reference in units of time, weighted by some self-knowable quality of life representing the quantity of misery per hour that I experience dying alone. Presently the quality of the marketplace on Mars is exactly 0 because 0 quantity is available for purchase. Footnote 3: The quality of life purchasable given the Time and Place is shown below to be bounded from above, although it is by no means bounded from below.
Back to Earth. If sufficiently rich, then maximizing material wealth calls for buying everything in desired amounts to maximize present quality of Life (qoL), holding ample dollars in reserve to spend on future quality (like a fancier vacation) and future quantity (like a longer vacation), and allocating the rest to increase future qQ which is not presently available for purchase (any new invention). In keeping with The Tautology, quality enhancements will provide for faster consumption of Quantity (Q=qwt). Note how perfectly this fits with The Tautology.
Ideally a good Capitalist with sufficient dollars would employ a strategy so as to maximize qoL at every point in time by exhausting most/all dollars by death. Any argument that an individual cannot meaningfully increase future qQMP fails. As an example: a medical breakthrough for genetic predispositions could yield considerably more time for any one capitalist, with expected returns modeled via actuarial mathematics. Consider just how far Humanity has come since the birth of The Enlightenment - it is easy to see how the not-so-distant future may include considerably more qQoL for sale. (Conversely the future may include far less qQoL if macro-decision-public-policy modeling continues to fail to quantify/unitize the cost of war - discussed more in the Macro Economic qwt section below.)
Quality enhancements, although more subjective, can be substantially accelerated by one talented individual. Examples include Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. All are responsible for inventing and/or producing new things which I personally enjoy - the qQoL that I can purchase is greater as a result of their work. My time and money could not purchase such things if they were not invented. As discussed next, micro-economic quality weights are quality of Life (qoL) weights. They have an upper bound that can be “objectively” unitized and measured by the self-interested party's own frame of reference.
Step 7 - How can an individual objectively define an upper bound for these inherently subjective quality weights with any mathematical rigor? Is it possible to prove dollars can only buy so much utility? Yes!
Proof Reductio ad Absurdum
Ripping off an idea from one of the greatest thinkers ever - I propose a financial thought experiment: pretend it is possible for you to pause all of society and gamble at the “Name Your Winnings Casino”.
Here you can choose entering into an even bet: 50% of the time you win the largest number of dollars you can mathematically express = $P; or 50% of the time you suffer absolute ruin: the casino takes everything of material value and your dollars and returns you to the real world where no insurance policies exist for you and no friends or family are able to ease your loss by lending a couch to sleep on or pulling strings for a job offeinterview. If you lose you reenter the world a naked homeless person “worth” exactly $0 and you can never play again.
Four observations follow:
  1. The decision to bet is made independent of any consideration of others, consistent with the Ideal Capitalist.
  2. Any sane human with the smallest capacity for self-honestly could conservatively estimate a walk-away number A, (denominated in dollars), such that if present “net worth” is greater than $A then no bet.
  3. No rational person choosing to bet would play more than once because either they’d lose or they’d win $P and have received the payout they named. “Letting it ride” constitutes an obviously dumb decision born out of the unwillingness to simply express the larger number in the first bet; however, a risk-inclined individual always values more over what they have and so they would be compelled to keep betting. Therefore rationality is mutually exclusive with risk-inclination. Furthermore if the betting person is risk averse, then $A is strictly less than $P for some minimum value of $P.
  4. Some confident rational individual might argue no such number $A exists for them because they’re so good they can start all over if they lose and earn a new fortune; and it would at first glance seem this individual is correct.
Many logical conclusions result:
A. An honest estimate for $A irrefutably reveals a hidden upper bound for this individual’s “Utility Curve”. Specifically if the function A’($A) = A’ maps to utility derived by $A dollar denominated “wealth”, then no amount of dollars even exists for this individual to choose to bet. Mathematically: “Net worth” > “Bet value” => A’($A) > .5A’($A+$P) +.50 => 2A’(A) > A’($A+$P) for all values of $P (The left hand-side must be greater or the bet would not be declined by a rational individual.)
B. 2A’ is not presently purchasable with any amount of dollars. 2A’ may be purchased in some future marketplace, (possibly with less than A future dollars), in the form of a medical breakthrough or buying future children birthday presents, but it is not currently purchasable in the present as demonstrated by the individual’s refusal to bet. Conversely A future dollars may lose “purchasing power” of just A’ if the future marketplace is inferior. Therefore true material-worth is fundamentally a function of the marketplace and cannot even be expressed in terms of dollars.
C. Most choosing to bet would logically express the upside payout $P as a sequence of 9s. Many more would know to use powers of powers. Knowledge of Knuth’s Up Arrow Notation could simultaneously save time and yield considerably “more upside”. Due consideration for exactly how much time should be spent writing out fantastically large numbers reveals an irrefutably objective hidden limiting factor: this person’s lifetime - measurable in units of time. This reveals one of two hidden domains on which value must be measured - TIME!
D. From this it directly follows that the confident individual in (4) is wrong. Some number $A greater than $P must exist, EVEN FOR THEM. However this individual is sure $A doesn’t and keeps writing numbers out for $P until they die. Therefore $A for them equals the number they have written out at time of death, never having played the game. I believe this is the definition of a Darwinian unfit capitalist - completely inconsistent with the Ideal Capitalist.
Analysis
The argument above establishes a horizontal bound for utility – lifetime measurable in units of time. It also establishes a finite upper bound for utility itself (represented by the area of the “utility rectangle” - see spreadsheet). This implies a finite upper bound for the rectangle’s height must exist; and this is empirically supported by the observation that billionaires are not known to blow through their life fortune in any short-period of time.
So why does any sufficiently wealthy capitalist focus on earning more dollars and die before exhausting most/all of their dollars (last death if family inheritance involved)? If sufficiently wealthy, material wealth is necessarily a bounded function of The Time Period, or the “quality and Quantity of the Marketplace”. TTP = qQMP >= qQoL. In other words, the marketplace itself is secretly an asset for every Capitalist!
qMP(TTP) = Max quality of life, or “max utility per hour” available for purchase in TTP QMP(TTP) = Max Quantity of life, or “max utility” for purchase in TTP (IE a longer vacation or medicine)
Thus on the micro level, quality weights are utility weights; and utility weights are capped by The Time Period. Thus it is the case that for every (finite) individual, a finite upper bound for utility is self-measurable in Time Period-Weighted Time (qwt = TPWT). For example: 2020 hours have far more value to any sufficiently rational and wealthy individual (SRWI) than 1920 hours. And as the earlier questionnaire (hopefully) shows, this is realizable by most middle-class people today. In other words, today’s middle class is sufficiently wealthy to the extent TPWT resolves the Rockefeller paradox. Footnote8: The size of the middle class itself is unfortunately shrinking. This has potential to result in negative externalities for all.
Since an Ideal Capitalist maximizes self-material-wealth above all else, then if they were also sufficiently wealthy, they would measure value in Time-Period-Weighted Hours since they would always purchase maximum utility per hour. This is by definition, since any SRWI has all necessary means to purchase max utility available per hour. (Note just how important quick access to true information would be.) Footnote 9: Neuroscience could use Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to objectively measure the Micro-Economic utility unit as “Neurotransmitter-Molecular-Count Weighted Hours”. Consideration for how to weight different neurotransmitters (like Serotonin vs Dopamine) would be necessary. For now, we are all similar enough for “time” to suffice, at least for short run measurements. For example: what is the penalty for severe crimes? “Time in jail” or death (all the person’s time).
Quantifying the Marketplace
Given the average life expectancy now is more than twice that of prehistoric man, the marketplace itself is worth strictly more than 50% of any sufficiently wealthy individual’s “asset portfolio”. Just note “time is money”. Footnote 10: They need not be rational to "realize" this time, so long as their doctor is sufficiently competent. "Realization" will come in the form of living longer, quite consistent with the accounting definition of gain/loss realization.
Keynote - a Maximalist will do more than just maximize present qQ purchased. They will also divert unneeded dollars to maximize future qQMP so that more qQ is available for purchase. Thus the Maximalist calculation includes due consideration for additional dollars that will be needed given future qQ becomes available.
Squaring Theory with Reality
Most already know most of this, at least on the common-sense level. So why don’t sufficiently wealthy Capitalists invest maximum dollars with less strings attached to maximize the future? Is it because that would help everyone else and constitute socialism? No! In this context socialism is Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”. A good Capitalist aims for precisely 0 concern about others, and any concern for implied socialism would constitute nonzero concern. Such concern would amount to incomprehensible irrationality far beneath any good Capitalist. So what else could it be?
Perhaps it’s simply the fact that much of humanity is still measuring their net-worth in the wrong dimension for the inefficient purpose of feeling superior to others with less money. Anyone currently doing this quite literally knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, not even their own self fortune, because they are using the wrong dimension of measurement. quality-weighted-time is the objectively correct way in which real value should be measured, and quality weighting is limited only by The Time Period in which time and money are being spent.
More noteworthy, any human mistaking dollars for qwt for this scorekeeping reason is still violating the prime rule of being a good Capitalist - they are demonstrating nonzero-concern for what others think of them. Implicitly and inefficiently, these individuals are expressing negative concern for others, as now is measurable by how worse off they are in units of their time. Specifically this is calculable as the opportunity cost of not investing more dollars for an enhanced future marketplace, measurable by others in said marketplace by the cost to this imperfect capitalist’s life expectancy, (all unitized in units of time).
Equity Miracle Swap Instruments
Perhaps the above explanations are not exhaustive of the full truth. Maybe some sufficiently wealthy Capitalists simply do not have the means to invest their dollars in a way that can reliably pay greater dividends. Therefore I propose a new type of financial derivative instrument called an “Equity Miracle Swap”. These would be voluntarily issued as contracts from the mega-wealthy. Here is a hypothetical example:
Rational (and thus risk averse) Billionaire-G (BG) possessing $100B in dollar-denominated-capital can now do research and will likely find they are genetically predisposed to a (presently) incurable illness (let’s say Small Cell Lung Cancer = SCLC). BG could use the chancy math in the proof above and might determine that Billions $91-$100 have minimal true value to him/herself when converted to qwt. Therefore BG could decide to start up an enterprise to find a cure for SCLC and use a $10B Equity Miracle Swap = EMSSCLC-$10B, or just “EMS” for short. The purpose is to maximally incent the researchers, who might otherwise just be employees. The contract would stipulate that all equity in the enterprise transfers over to the research team only upon successful development of the cure.
When measured in dollars, the payoff for BG is represented by the performance of the stock, which is greater than -$10B if no cure; or -$10B if the miracle cure is found. The former is greater than the latter. Which do you think BG will prefer? Obviously the latter, especially if they wind up contracting SCLC in the future! But the former was greater measured in dollars? How to reconcile?
This can be quantitatively reconciled by using the correct unit of measurement - qwt. Here is how: the newly discovered cure might empower their remaining dollars to purchase considerably more qwt in the future. The real expected return on investment for BG could be calculated actuarially as follows: Expected ROI = { Expected Return }/{ Investment } = { E(Δqwt Miracle) * [ P(Miracle EMS) - P(Miracle no EMS) ] }/{ A’($100B) - A’($90B) } Where: 1. A’($D) maps to utility measured in quality-weighted-time presently purchasable by D dollars 2. E(Δqwt Miracle) = Expected change in purchasable qwt given miracle cure occurs in lifetime 3. P(Miracle Event X) = Probability of Miracle given Event X
Note that because BG is risk averse, diminishing returns render billions $91-$100 worth very little qwt. Therefore the cost in the denominator = A’($100B) - A’($90B) constitutes a very small amount of qwt, rendering the expected ROI very large, even for relatively small changes to P(Miracle). Obviously the lawyers could tinker with the terms of the contract. Finally note that society is incidentally made better off if the cure is found.
Macro-Economic qwt
Please now consider the benefit of a qwt-centric model from a Macro-Economic standpoint in the context of the Doomsday Clock, where as always, economics can objectively measure value (or “GDP”) in units of quality-weighted-time. On this Macro scale, the quantity unit will be "Healthy Human Hours", calculated as always by multiplying quality weights of presently healthy humans, with units of time, where any human is healthy if he/she produces more future human hours. Note how naturally maternity and child-raising now fit into GDP.
This may also help resolve the argument over which crimes should be punishable with incarceration - specifically only crimes where the individual is deemed likely to contribute less negative future qwt to GDP when in jail vs when out of jail. Also there is a natural extension of this for the death penalty, although I do not wish to make such moral judgements. Footnote 10: Any argument that population overgrowth leads to mass death is correct. Policy models need only step back and estimate healthy human hours in the more distant future. Calculus can be used to model public policy decisions from present-day infinitely far into the future and compare infinite relativities for different policy options.
Also consider that actuarial modeling could be used to objectively estimate the cost of disinformation posed to every Capitalist on the planet, measurable of course, in units of time. Specifically calculated as expected changes to Humanity’s Expectation of Life on the Doomsday Clock, plus individual life expectancy given Midnight, times the probability of midnight. Also observe the need and means for due discount in modeling the "decrease" in the future qQMP (which might include radiation).
The Emergence of Economic Symbiogenesis
Try to arrive at the conclusion any good Capitalist must. Here is a hint - genetic Symbiogenesis resulted in the planetary-wide cooperation of all plant and animal life to regulate Earth’s Oxygen concentration. Note the immense success is, of course, measured in qwt. Weighting in this context needs to satisfy the same tautology as always. Therefore the final answer on this Mega-Macro scale comes in organism-count-weighted units of time. This is the current game strategy that genetic Evolution has concluded on Earth to date. It came from pitting individual selfish microbial interests against one another in the 0-rules game of survival of the fittest. The result is the current marriage between the Plant and Animal Kingdoms! (Like all great marriages there are still a few mentionable skirmishes.)
Also observe the micro-macro relational analogue between Chloroplasts and Mitochondria with Plants and Animals. Consider how this might analogize individual decision making with the marketplace as a whole.
If you are religious, consider just how correct this implies your understanding of God’s wish for the general wellbeing of every individual to be.
My conclusion is that there is a trail of breadcrumbs for our species to follow and we’ve had the right idea all along. We’ve just been doing the math wrong. Now every decision maker can better understand how to measure their own self-fortune and get to growing it faster!
Also interesting is the game theoretic argument for why every person must be allowed full forgiveness - it is the only way world leaders who are concerned for their own wellbeing could possibly embrace such a model. Astonishingly full forgiveness is 100% consistent with every major religion’s claim of what God hopes all of us can achieve. In economics, any desire for revenge can now be seen as The Sunk Cost Fallacy, measurable as always in units of qwt.
Finally, I wish to conjecture that a new Nash Equilibrium is available to our race: Perpetual peacetime under the individual Pareto Optimal Strategy of Ideal Capitalism as every individual looks to maximize their self-fortune and troll farms are voluntarily dismantled. If this sounds too good to be true, note that it very well may have been for all of human-history save the last few decades.
Key Technological Developments 1. The advent of nuclear weapons which align all of humanity's interests in a way which never used to exist. Even survivors of a nuclear war will be far worse off, now as measurable by decreases to the quality and Quantity of any future radioactive marketplace. Less qwt for purchase! 2. The advent of the internet renders information around the globe nearly free and instantaneous. If we can learn to be more self-interested, the only conclusion which rationally follows is to dismantle all troll farms for the simple purpose of maximizing Macro Time until Doomsday. The New Nash Equilibrium available to our race could be quantitatively modeled with actuarial techniques, and the optimal solution is to push Midnight infinitely far into the future by allowing every rational decision maker the means to make rational decisions with 100% true information. The internet sets up a worldwide analogy with our nervous system.
Footnote 11 - The Micro-Economic Model is now consistent with John Lennon's definition of life success: happiness. When asked what he wanted to “be” when he grew up, John responded "happy". John’s teacher thought he misunderstood the question. If John's teacher had instead followed up with the question to quantify: "How happy do you want to be?" - John could have replied: "as happy as possible for all my years.”
Footnote 12 - Warren Buffet's advice to "do what you love so you never work a day in your life" is quantified naturally by the model. I hope that more will start to take this advice. The qwt-centric-micro-model shows they will quite literally be made richer as a result. Given that richer people tend to contribute more to GDP, society will be made incidentally better off as a result. Star Trek almost had it but missed two words: “we work to better ourselves, and incidentally, the rest of mankind”.
submitted by tjn50351 to evolution [link] [comments]


2020.10.07 19:31 Dino_nerd_22 Jehovah's Witnesses vs Evolution! Part 5: Researching evolution myself

This is my fifth journal entry on the topic of 'Jehovah's witnesses (JW's) vs Evolution'. My first journal entry explained the purpose of these entries, so for those who have not read that yet - I'd advise that you do so before continuing.
So with a renewed determination to finally prove evolution as a lie, I set out on my quest to understand why people took it so seriously. Satan may have 'blinded the eye's of the unbelievers', but I was no unbeliever, and I was not going to be quickly shaken from my reasoning (2 Corinthians 4:4). I started with the book that started it all - The origin of species.
The origin of species by Charles Darwin (1859) has got to be one of my favourite reads. Never have I read about a man that was so open and honest about his discoveries. He wrote about them with an obvious zeal - as if he was trying his best relate the telling of his story and of the development of his theory's. What struck me most was in Darwin's time - science was very limited and purely dependant upon observations that could be seen and measured (empirical). He knew nothing of the genetic material which is passed from generation to generation (DNA) - yet his observations clearly allude to that connection. Because he was from a far simpler time his observations and conclusions can be easily followed and understood by anyone without the knowledge of years and years of academic research.
Darwin even devoted an entire chapter criticizing his own theory (something you never see Watchtower doing), clearly stating that although the evidence for evolution is there, the mechanism by which it is achieved was unknown. Skip forward almost 100 years and the discovery of DNA made headlines. Finally, the mechanism for evolution was finally discovered, and even today it is being studied and understood. But this still did not shake my reasoning, so I went on to my second book - God and the new biology.
God and the new biology by Arthur Peacocke blew my mind. Published in 1986, Peacocke explained in his book, in vast amounts of detail (and superb vocab) how the mechanism for evolution - DNA - changes with time, coining the phrase 'biomechanical as he eluded to the mechanical nature by which these unseen processes operate. with this book I finally began to understand how evolution was possible. But the ending chapters of this book addressed a different perspective. You see, Peacocke is a Christian, and he used the last few chapters to explain the harmony between the Christian faith, and the theory of evolution. But I couldn't believe everything this one man was saying. So I decided to test his opinions on cell mutation with another book - Outlines of organic chemistry.
Outlines of organic chemistry by Edward Arnold (1948) was a tiresome read. But it did help me understand how well the scientific community understood biomechanical processes and molecules 50 years go. But I needed something more relevant - something more modern. So I then moved on to my next book The Ancestor's tale.
The ancestor's tale by Richard Dawkins & Yan Wong (2016 edition) worried me allot. As a JW I had been warned about Richard Dawkins regularly as the man who hates religion. Still, I had to acknowledge that he is one of the worlds leading microevolutionary scientists, and if there was anyone I could learn anything from - it would be him. His co author as well - Yan Wong - is also considered one of the world leading experts in geneticists, so although I was scared initially to start reading the book I knew I was dealing with professionals. But again, all I could find was more irrefutable proof for evolution! I did not like this. So finishing the book I immediately went to read my next book - a book from one of Dawkins critics - The Dawkins Delusion.
The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt Mcgrath (2007) did what I expected a apologetic book would do. It defended the belief in God and questioned Richard Dawkins for his hatred on religion. But yet again it fully supported evolution as undeniable fact! I couldn't understand I. But then I began to realise that although evolution was established fact, it did not conflict with anything in the bible. It is possible to believe in both! As do many other Christian scientists. So then why was there so much fighting between evolutionists and fundamental Christians? That took me on to my next book Unnatural Enemies.
Unnatural enemies by Kirsten birkett (1997) again did what i though an Christian apologetic book would do. It affirmed the belief of a creator, acknowledged evolution as fact, gave another interpretation of scripture, but then It went into great detail how the scientific method works. I would seriously recommend this book to anyone who has doubts about the scientific community. It really does reassure you that science is real, and not controlled by the devil.
After this I went on to some more book that criticized the ones I had read previously (I did not want to show any bias in my research and I wanted to consider everyone's side). After reading a couple more books (Darwin Retired by Norman Macbeth (1971), and Darwinian evolution by Antony Flew (1984) I settled on my last book for my research. It was called Why evolution is true.
Why evolution is true by Jerry A. Coyne (2009) was the book for me! It is written for people who want to understand why evolution is a proven science - and it made no attempt to wander from that purpose. I'd hugely recommended this to anyone (I even bought 2 copies! one to keep and one to lend). You can not argue with this book! Its logic is irrefutable! Its discoveries undeniable! and its written in a way anyone can understand. It is modern and up-to-date, and it has pictures and diagrams (A big thing for me considering most books I had read did not).
But still I refused to accept the science. Don't get me wrong, I was pretty convinced with evolution at this point - I had studied it for 4 years, read all these books as well as innumerable online articles. But I needed to be sure. That's when I decided to go to university secretly - so that I can study evolutionary biology and see the science for myself instead of taking other peoples word for it.
After studying biology for an entire year I was ready to make my conclusion. EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
ok, maybe not all of it. But the fundamental principles (that being all life came from a common ancestor) is well established in multiple scientific disciplines. So where do I go from here. 5 years down the line and all I have done is exactly what I did not want to do. I had proven evolution to myself! But at that time I was still mentally in with the JW cult (although I had physically faded out by then in order to pursue my research). I couldn't understand why JW's would not face the facts about evolution. In fact, I felt angry that almost 200 years of scientific discoveries had been hidden from me by the organisation.
I had concluded that JW's were either deluded and did not know about the past 200 years of scientific advancement - Or they where deliberately deceitful and purposefully ignored, belittled, denied, twisted, misinterpreted, hided and even fabricated the truth. Only one thing would prove to me which on they are...
I was going to write into the branch office about my research.
(Read my initial letter to the branch office in the next edition and see where that got me!)
submitted by Dino_nerd_22 to exjw [link] [comments]


2020.10.07 09:09 tjn50351 Economic Symbiogenesis

Visuals
Economic Evolution Thomas J Novak
Disclaimers 1. I wish to contend that Micro and Macro Economics each constitute a hidden branch of evolution. To be clear, I’m not arguing for an analogy, ​I’m arguing each branch is an evolutionary process; and with this comes the mathematical framework needed to scientifically ​objectify success (major goal for every Capitalist). 2. The quantitative aspects are partially rooted in Game Theoretic Evolution. I do not expect this theory will garner majority support or ​understanding. It is only an esoteric theoretical ideal; but it is my hope that this will gradually change until one-day we have a Utopia. 3. The mechanism is voluntary through rational self-incentives. It advocates for a change in perspective for optimal decision making purposes. 4. Dollars and other fiat currencies are still completely necessary. Fiat currency constitutes a valuable technology that eliminates the need for ​bartering, yielding considerable savings in life’s prime asset - TIME. 5. I apologize to the reader in advance for the long essay. I hope it is "worth" your time.
Key Conclusions
Present day humanity is full of capitalists that have the right idea but are missing some key math. This is causing them to behave inefficiently in the context of their own self-interests. Ideal Capitalism is Pareto Optimal and should be practiced by all; and it should lead to maximal economic growth. I also wish to conjecture that a new Nash Equilibrium is available to our race: Perpetual peacetime under the individual Pareto Optimal Strategy of Ideal Capitalism as every individual looks to maximize their self-fortune and troll farms are voluntarily dismantled. If this sounds too good to be true, note that it very well may have been for all of human-history save the last few decades. Key developments are nuclear weapons and the internet. Discussed more in the last section.
Introduction
The "science" of Economics is not yet a science. Don't get me wrong - micro-economics is just about there; but macro-econ is a totally different story. Some call it “The Dismal Science” because it makes many quantitative claims that are inconsistent with empirical data. An example is the claim that John Rockefeller’s fortune could be made comparable to contemporary fortunes by adjusting his dollars for inflation and real growth. In fact only adjusting his hours for real growth does the trick.
In general macro-econ has a zero-sum-dollar-centric structure that does not allow for input of things like maternity and child rearing - two fundamentally "valuable" human activities. Another problem is that planetary-wide risks like war, (and that which is assured by "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD)), are not naturally measurable in dollars.
Some concepts from financial mathematics and science can generalize economic measurements into a co-compatible theory that almost seems too simple to be necessary. Basic results agree with common sense in every way. Some conclusions are so obvious the calculation seems pointless. Others might be beyond common sense similar to the notion that the Earth on which one walks is anything but flat. The former supports credence for the latter. All examples of human stupidity supports a need for all of it.
Ideal Capitalism
Most powers past through present can be thought cold, "calculating”, and self-interested; and most presently embrace association with Capitalism. Paradoxically, human history, (even recent), is a litany of fighting and stupidity and hurt feelings. These are inefficiencies from the Capitalist perspective, so something must be wrong with these “calculations”.
The argument will start with a Micro-Economic exercise intended to provide quantitative framework to measure just how unCapitalistic many present-day capitalists are acting, by unitizing all their actions in a scientific manner. Any Capitalist wishing to maximize their net-worth will be made more materialistically rich simply by maintaining complete indifference about others, understanding the entire picture, and trusting numbers. Wall Street can confirm this is its goal.
“Complete indifference” means precisely 0 concern for anything other than material-self-worth and 100% concern for material-self-worth. Nonzero concern for others, positive or negative, is suboptimal since it distracts from the objective of maximizing self-worth. Footnote 1: “Others” does not include the friends and family category. All intentional altruism can be represented easily by having those individuals' interests summed and grouped together so as to be viewed as part of the Capitalist’s “self-interest”. All reasoning forward is unaffected by how many friends and family are now implied to be included.
The results can empower all decision makers to calculate in the only way possible: with actual mathematics. The numbers will sometimes disagree with intuition; but the numbers will always be correct. The optimal strategy will hardly change except for sufficiently wealthy individuals. The proof can be seen empirically by back-testing the model in history on the domain in which all success is measured: quality-weighted-time (qwt). The definition of qwt will leverage Game Theoretic Evolution and is discussed more below.
Some conclusions may be counterintuitive similar to the way natural selection favored Symbiogenesis; but maximum profit calls for absolute “trust” in numbers above all else - exactly as exhibited in microbial evolution. Any call for “selfless” acting resulting in benefits to others is strictly incidental; and any less is unselfishly selfish in that it renders this inefficient capitalist less wealthy than maximally possible.
Step 1 - Any political bias about aiding others should be deleted. An “Ideal Capitalist” expresses precisely 0 concern for others and what others think - no more, no less. As long as an individual is correctly acting in their own best interests, they are acting as a Capitalist. Contra-positively one can claim to be a capitalist and act inefficiently against their own interests as many “capitalists” will be shown are doing today. I suggest a new term “Maximalist” to mean an Ideal Capitalist and avoid the need for case sensitivity.
Step 2 - Success Spawns Success. What is meant by quality-weighted-time? The definition comes from the only objective arbiter possible: Evolution through Survival of the Fittest. Something is “fit”, or “successful”, if it results in more quantity (Q) or more quality (q), where more quality means it produced more Quantity faster - which renders it more successful. This is The Tautology of Evolutionary Game Theory (The Tautology). For any evolutionary process, quantity is the metric which quantifies success. Quality is measured in quantity per unit of time (q=Q/t). Note that multiplying q=Q/t with t yields Q=qwt: the metric of success that necessarily satisfies The Tautology. Footnote 2: The word “tautology” is meant in the propositional logic sense. No negative connotation should be inferred.
Step 3 - How to connect economics with evolution?
Micro-economic decision strategy for trading time (t) for dollars ($), (or $ for t), amounts to a “phenotype”, (or observable trait), coded for by genetics inherited or mutated, and ideas learned or created. Respectively: - Inherited genetics constrain every rational human to be “risk averse”, regardless of self-perception, because natural selection favored and continues to favor risk aversion. Defined below and proven further below. - Mutated genes are almost never favorable for a human so this case will be discarded (although this force is quite powerful over quintillions of human-hours). - Richard Dawkins creatively postulated ideas to be “memes”: new evolutionarily viable packets of information, subject to selection forces, as they spread from person to person with varying levels of success overtime. Respectively gene inheritance and mutation is analogous to meme learning and creation. Furthermore the economy can be seen as a subsection of the biosphere governed primarily by evolution through forces of selection. The economy evolves through selection of both genes and memes, and memes are more abstract; but this should not change anything about the evolutionary game theory. After all humanity itself is naturally occurring, so Artificial Selection of Genes and Memes can be seen as a more complex extended phenotype coded for by the evolution of genes through Natural Selection. Any argument that “Artificial Selection” constitutes a meaningful difference from “Natural Selection” must first come to terms with the observation that humanity is itself, naturally occurring.
Step 4 - What is the definition of “risk averse”? The mathematical definition of risk averse simply requires diminishing returns to be experienced on assets like dollars. For example: an additional $1M adds less “utility” if you presently have $2B, compared to if you presently have $2M. If a person is not risk averse, then more success encourages more risky behavior. This is inconsistent with the observation that more success means one has more to lose. Therefore any risk-inclined individual cannot be an Ideal Capitalist as they will almost surely go broke gambling.
Step 5 - What is “utility”? Utility is the abstract micro-economic concept that, by definition, quantifies value. The unsettled question of how to actually do this is addressed below.
Total Utility = True Material Self-Worth = “well-offness”. All have one-to-one correspondence with each other. All are “mutually inclusive”. For example: twice the quantity of utility, by definition, means twice material self-worth; and so, the individual is exactly twice better-off. Diminishing returns do not apply to quantities of utility.
Step 6 - How to define an objective function to maximize utility? Per Wikipedia: “Consider a set of alternatives facing an individual, and over which the individual has a preference ordering. A ‘utility function’ is able to represent those preferences if it is possible to assign a real number to each alternative, in such a way that alternative A is assigned a number greater than alternative B if, and only if, the individual prefers alternative A to alternative B.”
Keynote: dollars are not material wealth, dollars buy material wealth, with diminishing returns, limited by genes, memes, and the quality and Quantity of the Marketplace (respectively qQMP).
To illustrate this, consider how rich you would be with $1T cash on Mars in the present day marketplace. Personally as an oxygen breathing Capitalist, I would view my self-worth as constituting a liability - measurable in my personal subjective frame of reference in units of time, weighted by some self-knowable quality of life representing the quantity of misery per hour that I experience dying alone. Presently the quality of the marketplace on Mars is exactly 0 because 0 quantity is available for purchase. Footnote 3: The quality of life purchasable given the Time and Place is shown below to be bounded from above, although it is by no means bounded from below.
Back to Earth. If sufficiently rich, then maximizing material wealth calls for buying everything in desired amounts to maximize present quality of Life (qoL), holding ample dollars in reserve to spend on future qoL (like new inventions) and future quantity (like new medicine), and allocating the rest to increase future qQ which is not presently available for purchase. In keeping with The Tautology, qoL enhancements will provide for faster consumption of Quantity (Q=qwt). Note how perfectly this fits with The Tautology.
Ideally a good Capitalist with sufficient dollars would employ a strategy so as to maximize qoL at every point in time by exhausting most/all dollars by death. Any argument that an individual cannot meaningfully increase future qQMP fails. As an example: a medical breakthrough for genetic predispositions could yield considerably more time for any one capitalist, with expected returns modeled via actuarial mathematics. Consider just how far Humanity has come since the birth of The Enlightenment - it is easy to see how the not-so-distant future may include considerably more qQoL for sale. (Conversely the future may include far less qQoL if macro-decision-public-policy modeling continues to fail to quantify/unitize the cost of war - discussed more in the Macro Economic qwt section below.)
qQ enhancements, although more subjective, can be substantially accelerated by one talented individual. Examples include Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. All are responsible for inventing and/or producing new things which I personally enjoy - the qQoL that I can purchase is greater as a result of their work. My time and money could not purchase such things if they were not invented. As discussed next, micro-economic quality weights are quality of Life (qoL) weights. They have an upper bound that can be “objectively” unitized and measured by the self-interested party's own frame of reference.
Step 7 - How can an individual objectively define an upper bound for these inherently subjective quality weights with any mathematical rigor? Is it possible that more dollars does not always result in more utility? Yes!
Proof Reductio ad Absurdum
Ripping off an idea from one of the greatest thinkers ever - I propose a financial thought experiment: pretend it is possible for you to pause all of society and gamble once at the “Name Your Winnings Casino”.
Here you can choose entering into an even bet: 50% of the time you win the largest number of dollars you can mathematically express = $P; or 50% of the time you suffer absolute ruin: the casino takes everything of material value and your dollars and returns you to the real world where no insurance policies exist for you and no friends or family are able to ease your loss by lending a couch to sleep on or pulling strings for a job offeinterview. If you lose you reenter the world a naked homeless person “worth” exactly $0.
Four observations follow:
  1. The decision to bet is made independent of any consideration of others, consistent with the Ideal Capitalist.
  2. Any sane human with the smallest capacity for self-honestly could conservatively estimate a walk-away number A, (denominated in dollars), such that if present “net worth” is greater than $A then no bet.
  3. No rational person choosing to bet would play more than once because either they’d lose or they’d win $P and have received the payout they named. “Letting it ride” constitutes an obviously dumb decision born out of the unwillingness to simply express the larger number in the first bet; however, a risk-inclined individual always values more over what they have and so they would be compelled to keep betting. Therefore rationality is mutually exclusive with risk-inclination. Furthermore if the betting person is risk averse, then $A is strictly less than $P for some minimum value of $P.
  4. Some confident rational individual might argue no such number $A exists for them because they’re so good they can start all over if they lose and earn a new fortune; and it would at first glance seem this individual is correct.
Many logical conclusions result:
A. An honest estimate for $A irrefutably reveals a hidden upper bound for this individual’s “Utility Curve”. Specifically if the function A’($A) = A’ maps to utility derived by $A dollar denominated “wealth”, then no amount of dollars even exists for this individual to choose to bet. Mathematically: “Net worth” > “Bet value” => “Net worth” > “50% times upside minus 50% times downside” => A’($A) > .5A’($A+$P) - .5A’($A) => 1.5A’($A) > .5A’($A+$P) => 3A’($A) > A’($A+$P) for all values of $P (The left hand-side must be greater or the bet would not be declined by a rational individual.)
B. 3A’ is not presently purchasable with any amount of dollars. 3A’ may be purchased in some future marketplace, (possibly with less than A future dollars), in the form of a medical breakthrough or buying future children birthday presents, but it is not currently purchasable in the present as demonstrated by the individual’s refusal to bet. Conversely A future dollars may lose “purchasing power” of just A’ if the future marketplace is inferior. Therefore true material-worth is fundamentally a function of the marketplace and cannot even be expressed in terms of dollars.
C. Most choosing to bet would logically express the upside payout $P as a sequence of 9s. Many more would know to use powers of powers. Knowledge of Knuth’s Up Arrow Notation could simultaneously save time and yield considerably “more upside”. Due consideration for exactly how much time should be spent writing out fantastically large numbers reveals an irrefutably objective hidden limiting factor: this person’s lifetime - measurable in units of time. This reveals one of two hidden domains on which value must be measured - TIME!
D. From this it directly follows that the confident individual in (4) is wrong. Some number $A<$P must exist, EVEN FOR THEM. However this individual is sure $A doesn’t and keeps writing numbers out for $P until they die. Therefore $A for them equals the number they have written out at time of death, never having played the game. I believe this is the definition of a Darwinian unfit capitalist - completely inconsistent with the Ideal Capitalist.
Analysis
The argument above establishes a horizontal bound for utility – lifetime measurable in units of time. It also establishes a finite upper bound for utility itself (represented by the area of the “utility rectangle” - see spreadsheet). This implies a finite upper bound for the rectangle’s height must exist; and this is empirically supported by the observation that billionaires are not known to blow through their life fortune in any short-period of time.
So why does any sufficiently wealthy capitalist focus on earning more dollars and die before exhausting most/all of their dollars (last death if family inheritance involved)? If sufficiently wealthy, material wealth is necessarily a bounded function of The Time Period, or the “quality and Quantity of the Marketplace”. TTP = qQMP >= qQoL. In other words, the marketplace itself is secretly an asset for every Capitalist!
qMP(TTP) = Max quality of life, or “max utility per hour” available for purchase in TTP QMP(TTP) = Max Quantity of life, or “max utility” for purchase in TTP (IE a longer vacation or medicine)
Thus on the micro level, quality weights are utility weights; and utility weights are capped by The Time Period. Thus it is the case that for every (finite) individual, a finite upper bound for utility is self-measurable in Time Period-Weighted Time (qwt = TPWT). For example: 2020 hours have far more value to any sufficiently rational and wealthy individual (SRWI) than 1920 hours. And as the earlier questionnaire (hopefully) shows, this is realizable by most middle-class people today. In other words, today’s middle class is sufficiently wealthy to the extent TPWT resolves the Rockefeller paradox. Footnote8: The size of the middle class itself is unfortunately shrinking. This has potential to result in negative externalities for all.
Since an Ideal Capitalist maximizes self-material-wealth above all else, then if they were also sufficiently wealthy, they would measure value in Time-Period-Weighted Hours since they would always purchase maximum utility per hour. This is by definition, since any SRWI has all necessary means to purchase max utility available per hour. (Note just how important quick access to true information would be.) Footnote 9: Neuroscience could use Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to objectively measure the Micro-Economic utility unit as “Neurotransmitter-Molecular-Count Weighted Hours”. Consideration for how to weight different neurotransmitters (like Serotonin vs Dopamine) would be necessary. For now, we are all similar enough for “time” to suffice, at least for short run measurements. For example: what is the penalty for severe crimes? “Time in jail” or death (all the person’s time).
Quantifying the Marketplace
Given the average life expectancy now is more than twice that of prehistoric man, the marketplace itself is worth strictly more than 50% of any sufficiently wealthy individual’s “asset portfolio”. Just note “time is money”. Footnote 10: They need not be rational to "realize" this time, so long as their doctor is sufficiently competent. "Realization" will come in the form of living longer, quite consistent with the accounting definition of gain/loss realization.
Keynote - a Maximalist will do more than just maximize present qQ purchased. They will also divert unneeded dollars to maximize future qQMP so that more qQ is available for purchase. Thus the Maximalist calculation includes due consideration for additional dollars that will be needed given future qQ becomes available.
Squaring Theory with Reality
Most already know most of this, at least on the common-sense level. So why don’t sufficiently wealthy Capitalists invest maximum dollars with less strings attached to maximize the future? Is it because that would help everyone else and constitute socialism? No! In this context socialism is Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”. A good Capitalist aims for precisely 0 concern about others, and any concern for implied socialism would constitute nonzero concern. Such concern would amount to incomprehensible irrationality far beneath any good Capitalist. So what else could it be?
Perhaps it’s simply the fact that much of humanity is still measuring their net-worth in the wrong dimension for the inefficient purpose of feeling superior to others with less money. Anyone currently doing this quite literally knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, not even their own self fortune, because they are using the wrong dimension of measurement. quality-weighted-time is the objectively correct way in which real value should be measured, and quality weighting is limited only by The Time Period in which time and money are being spent.
More noteworthy, any human mistaking dollars for qwt for this scorekeeping reason is still violating the prime rule of being a good Capitalist - they are demonstrating nonzero-concern for what others think of them. Implicitly and inefficiently, these individuals are expressing negative concern for others, as now is measurable by how worse off they are in units of their time. Specifically this is calculable as the opportunity cost of not investing more dollars for an enhanced future marketplace, measurable by others in said marketplace by the cost to this imperfect capitalist’s life expectancy, (all unitized in units of time).
Equity Miracle Swap Instruments
Perhaps the above explanations are not exhaustive of the full truth. Maybe some sufficiently wealthy Capitalists simply do not have the means to invest their dollars in a way that can reliably pay greater dividends. Therefore I propose a new type of financial derivative instrument called an “Equity Miracle Swap”. These would be voluntarily issued as contracts from the mega-wealthy. Here is a hypothetical example:
Rational (and thus risk averse) Billionaire-G (BG) possessing $100B in dollar-denominated-capital can now do research and will likely find they are genetically predisposed to a (presently) incurable illness (let’s say Small Cell Lung Cancer = SCLC). BG could use the chancy math in the proof above and might determine that Billions $91-$100 have minimal true value to him/herself when converted to qwt. Therefore BG could decide to start up an enterprise to find a cure for SCLC and use a $10B Equity Miracle Swap = EMSSCLC-$10B, or just “EMS” for short. The purpose is to maximally incent the researchers, who might otherwise just be employees. The contract would stipulate that all equity in the enterprise transfers over to the research team only upon successful development of the cure.
When measured in dollars, the payoff for BG is represented by the performance of the stock, which is greater than -$10B if no cure; or -$10B if the miracle cure is found. The former is greater than the latter. Which do you think BG will prefer? Obviously the latter, especially if they wind up contracting SCLC in the future! But the former was greater measured in dollars? How to reconcile?
This can be quantitatively reconciled by using the correct unit of measurement - qwt. Here is how: the newly discovered cure might empower their remaining dollars to purchase considerably more qwt in the future. The real expected return on investment for BG could be calculated actuarially as follows: Expected ROI = { Expected Return }/{ Investment } = { E(Δqwt Miracle) * [ P(Miracle EMS) - P(Miracle no EMS) ] }/{ A’($100B) - A’($90B) } Where: 1. A’($D) maps to utility measured in quality-weighted-time presently purchasable by D dollars 2. E(Δqwt Miracle) = Expected change in purchasable qwt given miracle cure occurs in lifetime 3. P(Miracle Event X) = Probability of Miracle given Event X
Note that because BG is risk averse, diminishing returns render billions $91-$100 worth very little qwt. Therefore the cost in the denominator = A’($100B) - A’($90B) constitutes a very small amount of qwt, rendering the expected ROI very large, even for relatively small changes to P(Miracle). Obviously the lawyers could tinker with the terms of the contract. Finally note that society is incidentally made better off if the cure is found.
Macro-Economic qwt
Please now consider the benefit of a qwt-centric model from a Macro-Economic standpoint in the context of the Doomsday Clock, where as always, economics can objectively measure value (or “GDP”) in units of quality-weighted-time. On this Macro scale, the quantity unit will be "Healthy Human Hours", calculated as always by multiplying quality weights of presently healthy humans, with units of time, where any human is healthy if he/she produces more future human hours. Note how naturally maternity and child-raising now fit into GDP.
This may also help resolve the argument over which crimes should be punishable with incarceration - specifically only crimes where the individual is deemed likely to contribute less negative future qwt to GDP when in jail vs when out of jail. Also there is a natural extension of this for the death penalty, although I do not wish to make such moral judgements. Footnote 10: Any argument that population overgrowth leads to mass death is correct. Policy models need only step back and estimate healthy human hours in the more distant future. Calculus can be used to model public policy decisions from present-day infinitely far into the future and compare infinite relativities for different policy options.
Also consider that actuarial modeling could be used to objectively estimate the cost of disinformation posed to every Capitalist on the planet, measurable of course, in units of time. Specifically calculated as expected changes to Humanity’s Expectation of Life on the Doomsday Clock, plus individual life expectancy given Midnight, times the probability of midnight. Also observe the need and means for due discount in modeling the "decrease" in the future qQMP (which might include radiation).
The Emergence of Economic Symbiogenesis
Try to arrive at the conclusion any good Capitalist must. Here is a hint - genetic Symbiogenesis resulted in the planetary-wide cooperation of all plant and animal life to regulate Earth’s Oxygen concentration. Note the immense success is, of course, measured in qwt. Weighting in this context needs to satisfy the same tautology as always. Therefore the final answer on this Mega-Macro scale comes in organism-count-weighted units of time. This is the current game strategy that genetic Evolution has concluded on Earth to date. It came from pitting individual selfish microbial interests against one another in the 0-rules game of survival of the fittest. The result is the current marriage between the Plant and Animal Kingdoms! (Like all great marriages there are still a few mentionable skirmishes.)
Also observe the micro-macro relational analogue between Chloroplasts and Mitochondria with Plants and Animals. Consider how this might analogize individual decision making with the marketplace as a whole.
If you are religious, consider just how correct this implies your understanding of God’s wish for the general wellbeing of every individual to be.
My conclusion is that there is a trail of breadcrumbs for our species to follow and we’ve had the right idea all along. We’ve just been doing the math wrong. Now every decision maker can better understand how to measure their own self-fortune and get to growing it faster!
Also interesting is the game theoretic argument for why every person must be allowed full forgiveness - it is the only way world leaders who are concerned for their own wellbeing could possibly embrace such a model. Astonishingly full forgiveness is 100% consistent with every major religion’s claim of what God hopes all of us can achieve. In economics, any desire for revenge can now be seen as The Sunk Cost Fallacy, measurable as always in units of qwt.
Finally, I wish to conjecture that a new Nash Equilibrium is available to our race: Perpetual peacetime under the individual Pareto Optimal Strategy of Ideal Capitalism as every individual looks to maximize their self-fortune and troll farms are voluntarily dismantled. If this sounds too good to be true, note that it very well may have been for all of human-history save the last few decades.
Key Technological Developments 1. The advent of nuclear weapons which align all of humanity's interests in a way which never used to exist. Even survivors of a nuclear war will be far worse off, now as measurable by decreases to the quality and Quantity of any future radioactive marketplace. Less qwt for purchase! 2. The advent of the internet renders information around the globe nearly free and instantaneous. If we can learn to be more self-interested, the only conclusion which rationally follows is to dismantle all troll farms for the simple purpose of maximizing Macro Time until Doomsday. The New Nash Equilibrium available to our race could be quantitatively modeled with actuarial techniques, and the optimal solution is to push Midnight infinitely far into the future by allowing every rational decision maker the means to make rational decisions with 100% true information. The internet sets up a worldwide analogy with our nervous system.
Footnote 11 - The Micro-Economic Model is now consistent with John Lennon's definition of life success: happiness. When asked what he wanted to “be” when he grew up, John responded "happy". John’s teacher thought he misunderstood the question. If John's teacher had instead followed up with the question to quantify: "How happy do you want to be?" - John could have replied: "as happy as possible for all my years.”
Footnote 12 - Warren Buffet's advice to "do what you love so you never work a day in your life" is quantified naturally by the model. I hope that more will start to take this advice. The qwt-centric-micro-model shows they will quite literally be made richer as a result. Given that richer people tend to contribute more to GDP, society will be made incidentally better off as a result. Star Trek almost had it but missed two words: “we work to better ourselves, and incidentally, the rest of mankind”.
submitted by tjn50351 to evolutionReddit [link] [comments]


2020.10.04 23:14 A35821363 October 10. On this date in 1912, Abdu'l-Bahá critiqued evolution "Between man and the ape, however, there is one link missing...The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal....Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found."

October 10. On this date in 1912, Abdu'l-Bahá critiqued evolution submitted by A35821363 to OnThisDateInBahai [link] [comments]


2020.09.27 18:00 NotJustUltraman Responding to Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort recently debated a YouTuber called Conspiracy Catz on the topic of evolution vs creationism. While Conspiracy Catz tried to focus on the science and evidence of evolution and creation, Ray simply preached his beliefs and continued to insist that evolution was not scientific. He also attacked atheists, which Catz never said he was. I don't make videos, but this debate inspired me to put together a response video pointing out all of Ray's false statements in that debate.
My response video: The 52 Things Conman Ray Comfort Said in His Debate With Conspiracy Catz
The original debate: RAY COMFORT v CONSPIRACY CATZ
Here's a summary of his false statements that I responded to, with citations for my responses where I felt they were approproate. These are also in the video description.
#1 Evolution is "unproven and unprovable." bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductoryand_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology(Boundless)/18%3A_Evolution_and_the_Origin_of_Species/18.5%3A_Evidence_of_Evolution/18.5A%3A_The_Fossil_Record_as_Evidence_for_Evolution
#2 Evidence of evolution "has to be received by blind faith."
#3 An evolutionist believes...
#4 People consider suicide because "Darwinian evolution leaves humanity without hope..."
#5 There are "about 50 trillion" atoms in a cell. thoughtco.com/how-many-atoms-in-human-cell-603882
#6 "There's never been an atheist society."
#7 Atheism is believing in "nothing creating everything."
#8 "Carbon dating's not trustworthy." Scientists have a "blind faith" in radiometric dating. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/3/l_033_01.html
#9 "Evolution hasn't got a clue" about male/female and reproductive organs. https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-evolution-of-sexual-reproduction.html
#10 The scientific evidence agrees with creationism.
#11 Evolution "hides behind the skirts of science."
#12 Evolution gives people "no moral responsibility."
#13 "When a question is repeated... that's when you formulate a lie."
#14 "The reason you love evolution is 'cause it means you can do what you want to do morally."
#15 "Well you said nobody... that means you're omniscient."
#16 In the past, "independent scientists believed the earth was flat".
#17 "Darwinian evolution is not scientific." Professor Dave Explains: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0cd_-e49hZpWLH3UIwoWRA
#18 "There's no scientific basis for" evolution.
#19 Evolution "cannot be observed." London Underground mosquito: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160323-the-unique-mosquito-that-lives-in-the-london-underground
#20 Evolution "cannot be tested." E. coli: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli
#21 Evolution "must be received by blind faith." Greenish warblers: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013319217703
#22 "Scientific and evolution - that's an oxymoron."
#23 "When we say god created evolution... that's... making up a non-existent god to suit ourselves."
#24 "God created male and female... I see evidence that can be proven and tested."
#25 Lots of nonsense about having things that haven't evolved yet.
#26 "The word 'science' just means knowledge."
#27 "The only way you can reconcile it... is to say that everything happened fully formed."
#28 Creationism is "scientific... can be observed."
#29 Nothing is evolving.
#30 "Evolution is not scientific."
#31 "Darwin himself said, 'I think I invented a fantasy.'" https://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/three-darwin-quote-mines-corrected
#32 "Evolution should be discarded... blah blah blah.") Pretty sure that's a direct quote.)
#33 "Thousands of individuals... have found that the bible is true."
#34 "It comes back to blind faith."
#35 "You don't know these scientists." https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWONIbZVnOb-okGZW1hwL2A
#36 The gospels don't contradict each other. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/messyinspirations/2020/05/more-contradictions-gospels/ https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html
#37 "You can say there was one bullet or there was two" involved in the JFK assassination.
#38 There are plenty of scientists who are "peer reviewed on creationism."
#39 "You just don't hear of it because of the moral responsibility that comes with it."
#40 "Go through Ken Ham's ark and look through all the science they've got."
#41 "Just go to Answers in Genesis..."
#42 Catz's argument is "about making up a false god."
#43 All scientists are wrong and stupid.
#44 I don't understand that question.
#45 "Evolutionists hide behind the skirt of genuine science."
#46 Evolutionists say if you don't believe in evolution, "then you're not scientific."
#47 "That's a strawman." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
#48 Evolution is "not scientific."
#49 "There goes the oxymoron again, Al."
#50 Catz is saying anthropomorphism isn't real.
#51 "Evolution vs. God is an award-winning video." https://www.livingwaters.com/movie/evolution-vs-god https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3064248 https://www.answersingenesis.org/apologetics/evolution-vs-god https://www.christiancinema.com/digital/movie/evolution-vs-god https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-vs-God-Ray-Comfort/dp/1878859110 https://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com/evolution-vs-god
#52 "I have studied evolution... for the last thirty years."
Edit: Formatting
submitted by NotJustUltraman to atheism [link] [comments]


2020.09.19 09:59 vivek_david_law How Creationists help keep the shadow of Darwin alive.

It seems to me more and more the only people who really adhere to Darwin are strict Darwinists like Dawkins. In fact, men like Dawkins and certain other people, use creationists. Realizing their theory is weak, they pretend the only attacks against it are coming from Christian sources. They claim that Darwinism is so well established and pretend that the only criticism comes from those with a religious agenda.
Nothing could be further from the truth, criticism and rejection is coming at Darwin from all sides, not the least from scientists. Like the scientists who rejected the tree of life, like Gould and his followers who attacked gradualism and noticed a lack of evidence in the fossil record. The scientists that are experimenting with genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer. There is all sorts of criticism, and rightly so, it's a bad theory.
But the worst part is creationists seem happily oblige. To often we behave like the Darwinists are right, or somehow stand on legitimate ground when they criticize Creationists as unreasonable, biased and out to spread a religious agenda.
Scientists will tell a Darwinist off and fight back when accused of being unreasonable and ignoring the evidence. Christians in their coy nature readily admit to ignoring the evidence. Too often we fully admit that we are solely motivated by the perceived threats to our religious views. We state outright we are biased, stating our desire for the evidence to come out a certain way - often even firmly declaring that we would never accept anything that contradicts with what's stated in the bible.
Why even admit that Darwin contradicts with the bible to begin with. Why admit that it's a reasonable theory to begin with? Why not just call it for what it is, a flawed theory that no one should believe in whatever their religious persuasion. Why not convince people that there are many alternatives to Darwinism, many of which have growing support among scientists and some which are even cited by alleged Darwinists themselves.
It almost feels to me like we want to lose the argument. Like we feel that Darwin is perfectly reasonable and get some high from feeling faithful by rejecting reasonable evidence. But making ourselves look faithful and pious isn't going to help us win, it's only going to shore up grounds for the failing theory that is Darwinism.
Isn't it so much stronger for both faith and science to say even if I found out Drawainism is completely true, I would still believe the bible, I would still believe in God. However, on evidence I find evolution insufficient.
On top of this, Creationists too often admit to the reasonability of Darwin. Coyly we declare that sure we don't believe in speciation but we still believe in natural selection. As if we were trying to gain acceptance and favor form the Darwinsist saying "oh see, we're not completely unreasonable, we're only unreasonable to the extent that our religion requires us to be." Why accept natural selection? Why accept any of it?
Many scientists are happy to throw out natural selection without apology and replace it with genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer or other mechanisms. We know that parents pass genes onto children, and some traits can become dominant. We don't know if fitness or selection has anything to do with what traits prevail. Maybe it's more just random chance. Maybe the the group of available traits stays roughly the same. Sure you see selection when you're purposely breeding beans like Mendel, that doesn't mean it's something that occurs in nature or causes changes in animals.
Maybe Darwin's finches changed because of genetic drift, maybe the peppered moth became dark for reasons other than predatation. I'm not going to accept this crap based on two measly examples. There are other mechanisms for change - the domestication syndrome suggests rapid change of many traits at the same time quickly, not selection based change. So why do we accept that Darwin's example must be correct. Why are we so afraid to throw the whole thing out.
But more than any of this I feel like Creationists want to lose because we never go to the best sources. There are many scientists that criticize Darwin and natural selection today based on the best available evidence. There is a rich history of alternative theories going back hundreds of years. And we ignore all that and read or cite nothing but 'institute of creation research' or 'Ken Ham.' I'm not saying these sources are always bad or wrong, I read them sometimes too. But that shouldn't be all our sources given the rich research and evidence and history that is available to use against Darwinian evolution. And it should never be our sources when communicating with the outside non-Christian world.
I think at the very least a large population here will agree with me that John Stanford represents the high point in modern creationist theory. And that's because we have a scientist arguing against Darwinism not with evidence from the bible, but with evidence from observations in the physical world that an atheist, a Muslim or a person of any other faith must accept. And that's powerful. When we argue that evolution is false because of God's world, people see nothing but bias, and instantly dismiss it as bias. But when we argue that evolution is false because of observations of genetic decay in viruses, it's hard to dismiss.
It's lucky that Stanford is a Christian. But there are also non-Christians mounting serious attacks on Darwin. And we should not be afraid to use their work either just as we are not afraid to believe in and use the science of black holes despite the atheism of Einstein and Hawking.
Religious belief
I'm not saying that we should disregard the bible or that the bible should not be the basis of our attacks on evolution. It's fine to take a position based on religious grounds. But we cannot hope to argue it persuasively to those who do not share our religious beliefs if we argue based on religious grounds. Nor can we hope to sway those who do not share our religious beliefs through reasons and arguments that presuppose our religious beliefs.
And I use religious beliefs narrowly here. It applies to atheists, Jews and Buddhists. But it also applies to Christians who have rejected creationism or young earth world views. If they have already rejected a view of scripture that rejects creationism or YEC, we cannot hope to convince them based on a view of scripture that presupposes creationism or YEC. If they have decided that science and religion do not conflict, we cannot convince them with arguments that presuppose a conflict.
We can try to convince them that our reading of scripture is the correct one or the preferred by God. But if we cannot do that, or have not done that yet, we are much better off relying on scientific arguments. And in the case of Darwin's, the scientific arguments and evidence attesting to it's flaws is more than abundant.
Darwin is Weak and Dying
One thing about Darwinists is that they are quick to mention creationists. They talk about creationist attacks in their non-academic writings. They mention creationist attacks off hand. Even Dawkins started off fending off Christian attacks on evolution, although he seems to have become much more sympathetic to us in his later life. This is a sign of weakness.
Because honestly, Darwinists aren't the only one's we're attacking. And they're not even getting the brunt of our attacks. The Catholic church is in an all out war with stem cell research. We have organizations that publish our own research as to why it's useless and murderous and unnecessary. ,How often do stem cell researchers refer to us? Never. Because we're not a threat to them. Their field is seen as legitimate by scientists and the public at large.
Same with geologists. We attack geology and radiometric dating as much as if not more than we attack Darwinian evolution. How often does a geologist or radio-chemist respond or even notice. Rarely if ever. There's no need for them to. We aren't a threat to them. Geology and chemistry are respected and seen as valid both by the public and their fellow scientists.
No the only ones who talk about Christian attacks are Darwinian evolutionists. Because they're they only ones who have to. Because their theory is on loose footing, it's predictions have failed, it's proven to be a hinderance to categorizing living things and a perplexing mess in explaining the behavior of the world's inhabitants. It is a dying theory, flayed by it's own folly, looking for a scapegoat for which to blame it's demise and to deflect and hide from it's many weaknesses.
Let's stop obliging. Let's stop being scapegoats help send this set of ridiculous speculative conjectures to the trash heap where it belongs. Because really, the fact that they are on the defensive and scapegoating us at all is a good sign that they are very close to the end. Because really nobody says that their view has 'mountains of evidence' or 'cannot reasonably be discarded' unless they know the opposite is true. Darwinian evolution is a theory on it's last legs
submitted by vivek_david_law to Creation [link] [comments]


2020.08.27 06:58 HarvosMom The End of the Oil Age Is Upon Us

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3aze8j/the-end-of-the-oil-age-is-upon-us
By Nafeez Ahmed
A new report suggests that over the next 30 years, at least 80 percent of the oil industry will be wiped out.
The oil industry is on the cusp of a process of almost total decimation that will begin over the next 30 years, and continue through to the next century. That’s the stark implication of a new forecast by a team of energy analysts led by a former US government energy advisor, seen exclusively by Motherboard.
2020, the forecast suggests, will go down in history as the final point-of-no-return for the global oil industry—a date to which we will look back and remember how the production of oil, as well as other fossil fuels like gas and coal, underwent a slow, but inexorable and largely irreversible decline.
Along the way, some 80 percent of the industry as we know it is going to be wiped out.
Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be recognized as a principal trigger for this decline. The new era of oscillating social distancing rules and remote working has crushed once rocketing demand, at least temporarily.
But in reality, the broad contours of this decline were already set in motion even before the pandemic hit. And the implications are stark: we are in the midst of a fundamental energy transition which will see the bulk of the fossil fuel industry gradually eclipsed in coming decades.
These conclusions are laid out in a soon-to-be-published analysis written by a former top strategy advisor to the US Department of Energy, Rodrigo Villamizar Alvargonzález—previously Columbian Minister of Energy, World Bank senior economic consultant, an advisor to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and energy expert for the Texas State Senate Economic Development Committee and Texas Public Utility Commission.
I obtained the draft manuscript, titled Energy and Power Futures, from the authors earlier this year when it was first finalized in January—just before the COVID-19 pandemic came on the scene. Villamizar’s forecast placed “the start date of oil’s decline at around 2020”—described as a “tipping point” for world oil production which, from then on “will go down. Nowhere in sight is the possibility of going over the all-time production high of 35.7 billion barrels per year (or 100 million barrels per day) beyond 2020.”
Villamizar is currently Head of Strategy for the Americas at Kaiserwetter Energy Asset Management, an energy investment firm based in Hamburg, Madrid, and New York. His analysis is co-authored with Randy Willoughby, a professor of political science at San Diego University, and Vicente Lopez-Ibor Mayor, previously founding Chairman of Europe’s largest solar energy company Lightsource BP (owned by oil and gas giant BP) and a former Commissioner at Spain’s National Energy Commission. Their study is due to be published later this year by Durham University’s School of Government and International Affairs.
After the COVID-19 crisis, they revised their forecasts—finding that the pandemic has reinforced the trends they had previously identified. In their updated text, they argue that the remaining years of the 21st century and beyond will be marked by a “slow but permanent decline in demand for plenty of oil resources.”
The new forecast is in broad agreement with the predictions of several other agencies, including the Norwegian energy consultancy DNV GL, the US financial consultancy McKinsey, and even oil and gas giant BP, which similarly portend a relentless decline in oil demand out to 2050.
But unlike those predictions, the forecast shows this decline could be faster, with huge ramifications for global oil production.
In the view of Villamizar, Willoughby and Mayor, this is not an oil scarcity crisis, but a demand crisis. They write: “Perhaps we were the first to notice that, even before COVID-19, the year 2019 would be the last ever to register daily production of oil closer to 100 million barrels. Indeed, before the coronavirus landed in Italy, the size of the oil market had already started its permanent slippery downward slide towards an uncertain future.”
In this analysis, oil demand was seen to peak at the end of 2019 and early 2020. “I thought we had a glitch in our forecasting model,” explained Villamizar. “But all the revisions pointed to a similar result.”
Among the factors behind the portended decline are a combination of “climate change action initiatives” demanding a brake on fossil fuel production; a shift toward more electric cars and other forms of transport; the persistence of lower oil prices undermining oil industry profitability; and a decrease in investment in new oil infrastructure and technology:
“Our results showed petroleum consumption reduced 31 percent by 2050 and 60 percent by 2100. That means that 2019 was the highest ever production level reached (100 million barrels per day, mbd).”
Villamizar and his colleagues point out that oil will still be needed for many key industries, including petrochemicals and plastics.
And there are vast reserves of oil still in the ground. So the industry will not simply disappear. But most of the world’s oil assets will, in their view, become ‘stranded’—left alone because global demand for it gradually evaporates.
The overall prognosis—that we are now moving into the second and final half of the oil age—is sobering: “Oil will not die anytime soon but it is already on a downward slippery slope.”
While the oil industry as such will not simply collapse, these experts believe it is now entering a protracted period of terminal decline over the next three decades. What emerges as a consequence will be a very different type of industry.
“We forecast a long-term Darwinian transformation in the future oil sector,” write Villamizar, Willoughby, and Mayor. “The new market structure rising from the old oil reality will be dominated by an oil troika made up of US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.”
Only 20 percent of industry players will survive by 2050, they forecast. And the oil market will be “one-third smaller than today.”
This drop in demand means, of course, that global oil production will also decline because it is no longer needed. According to the authors, production will decline from 100 million barrels per day (mbd) to 68-69 mbd by mid-century, and 40 mbd by 2100.
The world will simultaneously see a dramatic reduction of exports from 46 mbd to about 25 mbd by 2050, and a reduction in the number of exporting countries from today’s 58 to about 15.
These projected declines in global oil production by a third, and in global oil exports by nearly half—within the next 30 years—comprises a colossal collapse by any standard.
The analysts compare this sweeping oil sector transformation to the decimation of the tobacco industry. This time, the result will be “fewer players, shrinking markets and lots of enemies everywhere accusing the companies of selling an environmentally poisonous product… With less water in a shrinking pond, the bigger fish will push the smaller out and regroup in isolated sections of what’s left.”
But it is too early to rejoice that the coming decimation of the oil industry will happen sufficiently fast to save us from dangerous climate change.
Villamizar, Willoughby, and Mayor point out that “this future lower level of oil supply is still much higher than what the Paris Agreement on climate mitigation expects to be produced to maintain the world’s average temperature above no higher than 2 degree Celsius from the level registered during the Industrial Revolution.”
So it would be a huge mistake to sit back and wait casually for the oil industry to slowly die out. That approach would put us on a path to breach the scientifically recognized 2C safe limit. Beyond that level, scientists warn that we will experience an increasingly deadly and unpredictable climate.
And some scientists warn that even now, due to the uncertainties in predicting how tightly interconnected complex ecosystems might unfold, we may already be on the brink of triggering a runaway warming process that could culminate in an uninhabitable planet.
This predicament puts the task of rapidly decarbonizing our economy at the forefront of global priorities. That will, according to Villamizar and his co-authors, require huge investments in “areas like electrification, affordable long-term energy storage, and regenerative agriculture.”
It also means a change in investor mindsets, and thus a shift to a slower but perhaps more stable economy—instead of expecting quick bucks for the next quarter, investors should recognize the need to wait 10-15 years for returns, they argue.
While the demand slump is right now the big factor in the global oil crisis, several other studies have pointed out that the oil industry was overdue a reckoning due to the increasing costs of oil production and how this might impact supply relative to profits.
Earlier in February, I reported on a major study by the Geological Survey of Finland which assessed the implications of the fact that conventional oil production began to plateau around 2005. After this point, the world has become increasingly dependent on unconventional oil and gas supplies. Since 2008, the rise in demand has been met almost entirely by more expensive and difficult to extract sources such as shale oil, tar sands and offshore drilling.
**While market prices have remained too low for oil companies to make a meaningful profit relative to rocketing extraction and production costs, they have ramped up billions of dollars in debt to keep the show on the road: all enabled by massive post-2008 quantitative easing. Thus, the study warned:
*“The era of cheap and abundant energy is long gone. Money supply and debt have grown faster than the real economy. Debt saturation and paralysis is now a very real risk, requiring a global scale reset.” *
In June, a peer-reviewed study led by Dr Roger Bentley of the Petroleum Analysis Centre in Ireland found that global conventional oil production had indeed reached a “resource-limited plateau” from 2005 onwards. Although this was relieved by the rise in US shale oil, even before the pandemic there were signs that the shale boom “may be fairly short-lived.”
The new forecast from Villamizar and his co-authors, when taken into context with such studies, suggests that the oil industry now faces a perfect storm of crises affecting both supply and demand.
Production was increasingly uneconomical due to the transition to more expensive and difficult to extract unconventional oil and gas. The unsustainable debt-drenched economics of unconventional resources mean that, however vast those reserves are, it was increasingly unviable to continue extraction without even more unsustainable levels of debt. Meanwhile, global demand was already set to begin a slow but precipitous decline from 2020 onwards. But the pandemic accelerated that collapse in demand, and we have reached the point-of-no-return.
If this analysis is right, then the end of the oil age is in full swing. The real question is, how fast can we transition to what comes next?
submitted by HarvosMom to oilandgasworkers [link] [comments]


2020.08.21 13:54 jabmahn I don’t even care anymore

I had 1 real relationship, 3.5 years of deeply loving friendship that ended abruptly and badly 11 years ago and no relationship since despite trying for years. I can tell you with confidence it was my fault that everything fell apart and my behavior afterwards (chemical dependency, self destructive behaviors, and financial immaturity) that effectively ruined my chances for a decent future. Now I’m selfish, old, overweight, and have nothing to look forward too other than easing my existence until I die. I smoke heavily to numb my mind and body (shortens the path I’m struggling on too) and deep dive into movies to keep me company.
Life this way has many perks. I can stay up all night, eat in bed, watch whatever I want whenever I want, pack up and disappear to the woods if I so choose, and I never have to explain any behavior to anyone. The down side is obvious, I suffer depression off and on, and not having physical contact for so long has made me jumpy and suspicious of people that get too close to me, I’m sure my mental age is quickening without any stimulation from a close relationship too. I hate it when people who I care about find out about my loneliness, they always hit me the cliche stuff about being patient, or say things like “don’t you worry, you’re a CATCH there’s plenty of women who would love to date you! Plenty of fish in the sea! There’s someone out there for everyone” along with everything else. They don’t realize that none of that is true for me. Because it’s not women that are the problem. It’s my fucked up brain that won’t let it happen.
I tried self improvement for years and it made no difference in how I was accepted by women. The only ones that showed any positive attention to me were ones I had zero attraction or interest towards. Those I am attracted too have no idea and never will. My experience from before has my head so wound up to the point that I’d rather run headlong into highway traffic than take that risk of pain and loss again. Even though I know intellectually that it isn’t true I become extremely panicked anytime I have the urge to do tell someone my true feelings/attractions.
I have given up entirely after such a long time of personal defeat, crippling fear of rejections, and failure as an active member in Darwinian evolution. I realize It’s not natural for people to live the way I do and no one should have to experience their lives the way I have. But it’s the one I have and I know that I’ll never be anything other than alone, at this point I accept it. I feel free knowing that when I do die I won’t be leaving anyone to grieve or struggle with my death. It’ll be total strangers that have to deal with my corpse at the end and not people I care about.
submitted by jabmahn to ForeverAlone [link] [comments]


2020.08.02 17:59 CuteBananaMuffin Archaeological Cover-Ups - A Plot to Control History ?

by Will Hart
Extracted from Nexus Magazine
April-May 2002
from NexusMagazine Website

The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence
that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.
"The Brain Police" and "The Big Lie"
Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially in the field of science, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be very skeptical about conspiracies--unless the Mafia or some Muslim radicals are behind the alleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that much of it is in plain view.
The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and even their play-by-play tactics are transparent, once you learn to spot them. However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen of propaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and goals. It would be convenient if we could point to a plumber's unit and a boldface liar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.
The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are many vested interest groups. A cursory investigation yields the usual suspects: scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the status quo to maintain. Their modus operandi is "The Big Lie" -- and the bigger and more widely publicized, the better.
They rely on invoking their academic credentials to support their arguments, and the presumption is that no one has the right to question their authoritarian pronouncements that:
there is no mystery about who built the Great Pyramid or what the methods of construction were, and the Sphinx shows no signs of water damage there were no humans in the Americas before 20,000 BC the first civilization dates back no further than 6000 BC there are no documented anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to take into account there are no lost or unaccounted-for civilizations.
Let the evidence to the contrary be damned!
Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid
In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presented geological evidence showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become well known as the "water erosion controversy". An examination of the politicking that Egyptologists deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.
Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issue to the attention of geologist Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West's preliminary conclusion and they announced their findings.
Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and insensitive". That was a curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal plane. It did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly unscientific.
But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and "personalizing" the debate is a highly effective strategy--one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist's assessment would hold more weight on this particular point.)
A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were invited to debate the issue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. West was not allowed to participate because he lacked the required credentials.
This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the establishment's arsenal: only degreed scientists can practice science. Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent researcher out of the loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two unless you have number one.
Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require a degree to observe and record facts and think critically about them, especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open society, science has to be a democratic process.
Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the debate have been batted back and forth since then without resolution. It is similar to the controversy over who built the Giza pyramids and how.
This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has been promoted for generations in front of God and everyone. The controversy over how the Great Pyramid was constructed is one example. It could be easily settled if Egyptologists wanted to resolve the dispute. A simple test could be designed and arranged by impartial engineers that would either prove or disprove their longstanding disputed theory--that it was built using the primitive tools and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.
Why hasn't this been done?
The answer is so obvious, it seems impossible: they know that the theory is bogus. Could a trained, highly educated scientist really believe that 2.3 million tons of stone, some blocks weighing 70 tons, could have been transported and lifted by primitive methods? That seems improbable, though they have no compunction against lying to the public, writing textbooks and defending this theory against alternative theories. However, we must note that they will not subject themselves to the bottom-line test.
We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the burden of proof of his/her thesis; however, the social scientists who make these claims have never stood up to that kind of scrutiny. That is why we must suspect a conspiracy. No other scientific discipline would get away with bending the rules of science. All that Egyptologists have ever done is bat down alternative theories using underhanded tactics. It is time to insist that they prove their own proposals.
Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of their hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of civilization having started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC. The theory does not permit an advanced civilization to have existed prior to that time. End of discussion. Archaeology and history lose their meaning without a fixed timeline as a point of reference.
Since the theory of "cultural evolution" has been tied to Darwin's general theory of evolution, even more is at stake. Does this explain why facts, anomalies and enigmas are denied, suppressed and/or ignored? Yes, it does.
The biological sciences today are based on Darwinism.
Pressure Tactics: The Ica Stones of Peru
Now we turn to another, very different case. In 1966, Dr Javier Cabrera received a stone as a gift from a poor local farmer in his native Ica, Peru. A fish was carved on the stone, which would not have meant much to the average villager but it did mean a lot to the educated Dr Cabrera. He recognized it as a long-extinct species. This aroused his curiosity. He purchased more stones from the farmer, who said he had collected them near the river after a flood.
Dr Cabrera accumulated more and more stones, and word of their existence and potential import reached the archaeological community. Soon, the doctor had amassed thousands of "Ica stones". The sophisticated carvings were as enigmatic as they were fascinating. Someone had carved men fighting with dinosaurs, men with telescopes and men performing operations with surgical equipment. They also contained drawings of lost continents.
Several of the stones were sent to Germany and the etchings were dated to remote antiquity. But we all know that men could not have lived at the time of dinosaurs; Homo sapiens has only existed for about 100,000 years.
The BBC got wind of this discovery and swooped down to produce a documentary about the Ica stones. The media exposure ignited a storm of controversy. Archaeologists criticized the Peruvian government for being lax about enforcing antiquities laws (but that was not their real concern). Pressure was applied to government officials.
The farmer who had been selling the stones to Cabrera was arrested; he claimed to have found them in a cave but refused to disclose the exact location to authorities, or so they claimed.
This case was disposed of so artfully that it would do any corrupt politician proud. The Peruvian government threatened to prosecute and imprison the farmer. He was offered and accepted a plea bargain; he then recanted his story and "admitted" to having carved the stones himself. That seems highly implausible, since he was uneducated and unskilled and there were 11,000 stones in all. Some were fairly large and intricately carved with animals and scenes that the farmer would not have had knowledge of without being a paleontologist. He would have needed to work every day for several decades to produce that volume of stones. However, the underlying facts were neither here nor there. The Ica stones were labeled "hoax" and forgotten.
The case did not require a head-to-head confrontation or public discrediting of non-scientists by scientists; it was taken care of with invisible pressure tactics. Since it was filed under "hoax", the enigmatic evidence never had to be dealt with, as it did in the next example.
Censorship of "Forbidden" Thinking - Evidence for Mankind's Great Antiquity
The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it also demonstrates how the scientific establishment openly uses pressure tactics on the media and government. His book Forbidden Archeology examines many previously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern man's antiquity far exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies.
The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but the book became far more controversial than the contents when it was used in a documentary.
In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man, which featured material from Cremo's book. The reaction from the scientific community went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with letters from irate scientists who called the producer "a fraud" and the whole program "a hoax".
But the scientists went further than this--a lot further. In an extremely unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force NBC not to rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then they took the most radical step of all: they presented their case to the federal government and requested the Federal Communications Commission to step in and bar NBC from airing the program again.
This was not only an apparent infringement of free speech and a blatant attempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censor intellectual discourse. If the public or any government agency made an attempt to handcuff the scientific establishment, the public would never hear the end of it.
The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of the Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:
At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so that the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In addition, NBC should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public science education can be established.
I think we have some good leads on who "the Brain Police" are. And I really do not think "conspiracy" is too strong a word--because for every case of this kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others are going on successfully.
We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts or dates have been labeled "error" and tucked away in storage warehouses or circular files, never to see the light of day.
Data Rejection
Inconvenient Dating in Mexico
Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates how far established scientists will go to guard orthodox tenets.
McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by using four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist's finding was 250,000 years or more.
The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait "crossing" theory, and it was the motivation behind the head archaeologist's tossing Steen-McIntyre's results in the circular file and asking for a new series of dating tests. This sort of reaction does not occur when dates match the expected chronological model that supports accepted theories.
Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but she refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and she lost a teaching job at an American university.
Government Suppression and Ethnocentrism
Avoiding Anomalous Evidence in NZ, China and Mexico
In New Zealand, the government actually stepped in and enacted a law forbidding the public from entering a controversial archaeological zone. This story appeared in the book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, by Mark Doutré.
However, as we will find (and as I promised at the beginning of the article), this is a complicated conspiracy. Scientists trying to protect their "hallowed" theories while furthering their careers are not the only ones who want artifacts and data suppressed. This is where the situation gets sticky.
The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New Zealand because an archaeological dig apparently showed evidence of a non-Polynesian culture that preceded the Maori--a fact that the tribe was not happy with. They learned of the results of the excavations before the general public did and complained to the government. According to Doutré, the outcome was "an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention by New Zealand government departments to withhold archaeological information from public scrutiny for 75 years".
The public got wind of this fiasco but the government denied the claim. However, official documents show that an embargo had been placed on the site. Doutré is a student of New Zealand history and archaeology. He is concerned because he says that artifacts proving that there was an earlier culture which preceded the Maori are missing from museums.
He asks what happened to several anomalous remains:
Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy red brown hair), originally obtained from a rock shelter near Watakere, that were on display at the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many years? Where is the giant skeleton found near Mitimati?
Unfortunately this is not the only such incident. Ethnocentrism has become a factor in the conspiracy to hide mankind's true history. Author Graham Hancock has been attacked by various ethnic groups for reporting similar enigmatic findings.
The problem for researchers concerned with establishing humanity's true history is that the goals of nationalists or ethnic groups who want to lay claim to having been in a particular place first, often dovetail with the goals of cultural evolutionists.
Archaeologists are quick to go along with suppressing these kinds of anomalous finds. One reason Egyptologists so jealously guard the Great Pyramid's construction date has to do with the issue of national pride.
The case of the Takla Makan Desert mummies in western China is another example of this phenomenon. In the 1970s and 1980s, an unaccounted-for Caucasian culture was suddenly unearthed in China. The arid environment preserved the remains of a blond-haired, blue-eyed people who lived in pre-dynastic China. They wore colorful robes, boots, stockings and hats. The Chinese were not happy about this revelation and they have downplayed the enigmatic find, even though Asians were found buried alongside the Caucasian mummies.
National Geographic writer Thomas B. Allen mused in a 1996 article about his finding a potsherd bearing a fingerprint of the potter. When he inquired if he could take the fragment to a forensic anthropologist, the Chinese scientist asked whether he "would be able to tell if the potter was a white man". Allen said he was not sure, and the official pocketed the fragment and quietly walked away. It appears that many things get in the way of scientific discovery and disclosure.
The existence of the Olmec culture in Old Mexico has always posed a problem. Where did the Negroid people depicted on the colossal heads come from? Why are there Caucasians carved on the stele in what is Mexico's seed civilization? What is worse, why aren't the indigenous Mexican people found on the Olmec artifacts?
Recently a Mexican archaeologist solved the problem by making a fantastic claim: that the Olmec heads -- which generations of people of all ethnic groups have agreed bear a striking resemblance to Africans -- were really representations of the local tribe.
STORM-TROOPERS FOR DARWINISM
The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.
The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.
That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?
In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.
The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona fide scientists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin's theory:
Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.
We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts". It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin's theory.
Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realized that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.
Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigors of routine investigative journalism.
The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more myths about science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:
I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand - it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as "loony", "stupid" and "in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting.
(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?)
Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors, implying that Milton was a "mole" creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognize this as a standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character assassination" tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight.
According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a "creationist", and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and scratched the piece.
Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat used such pressure tactics to kill a story in the mass media. It would ignite a huge scandal. Not so with scientists, who seem to be regarded as "sacred cows" and beyond reproach. There are many disturbing facts related to these cases. Darwin's theory of evolution is the only theory routinely taught in our public school system that has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the criticisms been allowed into the curriculum.
This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that the American public wants the theory of evolution taught to their children; however, "71 per cent of the respondents say biology teachers should teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence against Darwinian theory". Nevertheless, there are no plans to implement this balanced approach.
It is ironic that Richard Dawkins has been appointed to the position of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a classic "Brain Police" stormtrooper, patrolling the neurological front lines. The Western scientific establishment and mass media pride themselves on being open public forums devoid of prejudice or censorship. However, no television program examining the flaws and weaknesses of Darwinism has ever been aired in Darwin's home country or in America. A scientist who opposes the theory cannot get a paper published.
The Mysterious Origins of Man was not a frontal attack on Darwinism; it merely presented evidence that is considered anomalous by the precepts of his theory of evolution.
Returning to our bastions of intellectual integrity, Forest Mims was a solid and skilled science journalist. He had never been the centre of any controversy and so he was invited to write the most-read column in the prestigious Scientific American, "The Amateur Scientist", a task he gladly accepted. According to Mims, the magazine's editor Jonathan Piel then learned that he also wrote articles for a number of Christian magazines.
The editor called Mims into his office and confronted him.
"Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" Piel asked. Mims replied, "No, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould."
His response did not affect Piel's decision to bump Mims off the popular column after just three articles.
This has the unpleasant odor of a witch-hunt. The writer never publicly broadcast his private views or beliefs, so it would appear that the "stormtroopers" now believe they have orders to make sure "unapproved" thoughts are never publicly disclosed.
Taboo or Not Taboo?
So, the monitors of "good thinking" are not just the elite of the scientific community, as we have seen in several cases; they are television producers and magazine editors as well. It seems clear that they are all driven by the singular imperative of furthering "public science education", as the president of the Cambrian Institute so aptly phrased it.
However, there is a second item on the agenda, and that is to protect the public from "unscientific" thoughts and ideas that might infect the mass mind.
We outlined some of those taboo subjects at the beginning of the article; now we should add that it is also "unwholesome" and "unacceptable" to engage in any of the following research pursuits:
paranormal phenomena UFOs cold fusion and free energy,
...and all the rest of the "pseudo-sciences".
Does this have a familiar ring to it? Are we hearing the faint echoes of religious zealotry? Who ever gave science the mission of engineering and directing the inquisitive pursuits of the citizenry of the free world?
It is all but impossible for any scientific paper that has anti-Darwinian ramifications to be published in a mainstream scientific journal. It is also just as impossible to get the "taboo" subjects even to the review table, and you can forget about finding your name under the title of any article in Nature unless you are a credentialed scientist, even if you are the next Albert Einstein.
To restate how this conspiracy begins, it is with two filters: credentials and peer review. Modern science is now a maze of such filters set up to promote certain orthodox theories and at the same time filter out that data already prejudged to be unacceptable. Evidence and merit are not the guiding principles; conformity and position within the established community have replaced objectivity, access and openness.
Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most outrageous personal attacks against those they perceive to be the enemy. Eminent paleontologist Louis Leakey penned this acid one-liner about Forbidden Archeology:
"Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool."
Once again, we see the thrust of a personal attack; the merits of the evidence presented in the book are not examined or debated. It is a blunt, authoritarian pronouncement.
In a forthcoming installment, we will examine some more documented cases and delve deeper into the subtler dimensions of the conspiracy.
References and Resources:
submitted by CuteBananaMuffin to conspiracy [link] [comments]


2020.07.30 23:17 BakaSandwich “This thing IS what it seems to be, it’s a galactic intelligence, it’s a billion years old, it’s touched ten million worlds, it knows the history of 150,000 civilizations, it’s beyond the possibility of your conceiving it…” Terence McKenna. Post by u/Venus230

“This thing IS what it seems to be, it’s a galactic intelligence, it’s a billion years old, it’s touched ten million worlds, it knows the history of 150,000 civilizations, it’s beyond the possibility of your conceiving it…” Terence McKenna
“If we’re ever to get to grips properly with the profound mysteries of consciousness, and with the ground truth about this thing we call “reality”, then sooner or later we’re going to have deploy the ancient technology of dimethyltryptamine (DMT) the most powerful psychedelic known to science. The groundwork was done in the 1990’s by Rick Strassman at the University of New Mexico, further important investigations of this so-called “spirit molecule” are underway today at the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, but one of the most inspired and most insightful new minds in the field is computational neurobiologist Andrew Gallimore, author of the startling and powerful Alien Information Theory: Psychedelic Drug Technologies and the Cosmic Game**. I highly recommend this remarkable, deeply thought-provoking, well-written and actually unique book. The evidence and analysis presented on DMT and its role as a reality modulator will — literally — blow your mind.”**
----- Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods, and of Supernatural; Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind.

Terence McKenna’s mushroom-inspired vision of an ancient, almost god-like, super-intelligence is both awe-inspiring and terrifying. However, whilst there is no reason to assume that such an unimaginably powerful alien intelligence couldn’t exist somewhere within this Universe or, perhaps, in some hidden dimensions beyond it, few fear having to confront such a creature: these frightening dimensions can be safely tucked away amongst the more exotic branches of modern mathematical physics and their occupants relegated to the pages of pulp sci-fi novels. At least that’s the case until one encounters DMT.
DMT — N,N-dimethyltryptamine — is the strangest and most ubiquitous of all naturally-occurring psychedelic molecules, and presents something of a problem for those who would have us — like Carl Sagan — comfortably alone in our orbit around a “humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of the Universe”: within seconds of ingestion, either by inhalation of its acrid vapour or by intravenous injection, DMT hurls the user with a frightening ferocity into a bizarre hyperdimensional world replete with a diverse panoply of extremely intelligent entities, some of which bear an uncanny resemblance to McKenna’s ancient galactic intelligence. It’s reassuringly easy — some might say facile — to simply dismiss these experiences as mere hallucination, but it really isn’t that simple. From an orthodox neuroscience standpoint, it’s actually pretty tricky to explain why ingestion of the world’s simplest psychedelic molecule ought to reliably manifest hypertechnological worlds teeming with bizarre alien intelligences (Gallimore, 2013). So, what’s to be done with the machine elves, the insectoid aliens, and their ilk? Can they be filed away alongside the other psychological case studies marked “hallucinatory phenomena”? Or could something far far stranger be going on?
In the modern era, it’s pretty easy to find a cosmologist, astronomer, or any other rational individual who will happily contemplate the extremely high probability of us living within a Universe teeming with intelligent life, but many will toss their head back derisively should you suggest there might be ways of establishing direct two-way communication with them: monumental intergalactic separation and light-speed limitations are the standard weapons of choice wielded to keep such life at a reassuringly safe distance. They are there, but they will never be here. Naturally, there are honourable exceptions keen to point out that we can’t be sure that an intelligent civilisation a million or so years more advanced than us couldn’t have worked out how to manipulate the structure of space-time itself to generate shortcuts for interstellar travel. Indeed, such space-time wormholes — known technically as Einstein–Rosen bridges — fall naturally out of Einstein’s field equations. As such, we shouldn’t be too surprised if tales of UFOs hovering over rural outhouses and nocturnal alien abductions turn out to have some basis in truth.
Of course, it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to imagine what an intelligent creature a thousand, let alone a few million, years more advanced than us might look like, and it would be unwise to assume that the majority of such aliens would occupy any kind of recognisably biological form. Amongst intelligent beings that evolve within the Universe, it’s likely that the biological-technological phase — the phase we’re in — is transient (Davies, 2010): estimates for the lifetime of a technological civilisation range from as low as a few thousand years to as high as a million or more. But, even at our own extremely young technological age — 100 years or so — cultural and technological evolution is already proceeding at a vastly greater pace than its biological Darwinian counterpart. According to cognitive scientist Susan Schneider (2015), once a civilisation creates the technology that could put them in touch with the cosmos, they are probably only a few hundred years from shifting their paradigm from biology to some kind of artificial intelligence, at which point they might well be transparent to any of our standard attempts at communication: As McKenna liked to quip, “to search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture-bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant.” All things considered, the balance of probabilities suggests we most likely live in a largely post-biological Universe, “one in which the majority of intelligent life has evolved beyond flesh and blood intelligence” (Dick, 2003), and it’s a challenge to even imagine what that might look like, let alone work out how we might find and communicate with it.
Although it’s certainly something of a humbling experience to realise that the majority of intelligent life within our own Universe is likely to be beyond our comprehension, there’s little to bolster our meat-embedded egos in considering other universes: there’s no reason why our Universe couldn’t be one amongst countless others and we have no way of knowing the types of intelligences that might, or might not, emerge within them. In fact, not only do we not know anything of their nature, but it seems we also have no means of learning anything of their nature and, as such, they must surely remain squarely within the realms of wild speculation. But perhaps we shouldn’t dismiss them so hastily in this way.
MIT computer scientist Ed Fredkin, one of the fathers of digital physics, cautions us against assuming that the restrictions imposed by the Laws of Physics that reign in this Universe have any bearing on events, processes, or emergent living intelligences in places outside of it, which he simply calls Other (Fredkin, 2003). Of course, it’s a huge leap from such level-headed agnosticism to any kind of assertion regarding the nature — or even the existence — of intelligence beyond our little slice of reality. But, the crucial point is that the physical laws as they manifest in our Universe might be wholly irrelevant when considering the Other. As such, it would be extremely naive and “Universe-centric” to assume that interdimensional intelligences would be unable to somehow access or provide a gateway into their reality, whether they be post-biological beings that have left our material Universe or intelligences that emerged entirely outside of it. We can’t assume, for example, that an extremely advanced post-biological civilisation couldn’t have discovered a means of exiting our Universe entirely to a realm where the physics are incomparable. Or, it’s also conceivable that there might be life extant in other parallel realities (alternate universes) that are entirely unimaginable in their form to us, but which, for reasons yet to be understood, can be accessed using certain technologies (such as DMT). Which is more likely is difficult to say but, according to astrobiologist Stephen J. Dick, the maintenance, improvement, and perpetuation of knowledge and intelligence is the central driving force of cultural evolution, and to the extent that intelligence can be improved, it will be improved”(Dick, 2003). In other words, knowledge is power**,** and if we meet post-biological beings that seem to have transcended the material realm we currently occupy, we might expect them to be extraordinarily intelligent. In fact, one could argue that the immense levels of intelligence manifested by beings so often met in the DMT space, together with the curiously hypertechnological environments they tend to inhabit, is evidence of a vast period of technological evolution and perhaps indicative of beings that were once part of our Universe but have long since made their escape into the Other. And, perhaps, DMT is an embedded technology that might allow us, one day, to follow. Since we currently have no understanding of the physics of the “DMT world”, nor of its relationship to our reality — Fredkin’s Agnostic Principle — any objection by appealing to the Laws of Physics in this Universe might well be moot.
Of course, all of this is highly speculative stuff, but there is a serious point to be made here: when you come face-to-face with astonishingly powerful and intelligent alien entities that seem — or claim — to hail from normally-hidden dimensions of reality, you must be very careful. Whether or not we can currently explain why DMT is able to grant an audience with such beings, it might be a good idea to shut up, to watch, and to listen. Because there’s a small, but very real, possibility that they’re exactly who they say they are.

Alien Information Theory — Part II: The Book

As a scientist and writer with a passion for psychoactive drugs, especially those of the psychedelic variety, I’ve spent most of my adult life so far thinking about how these molecules interact with the brain to generate their remarkable effects on consciousness, and what these effects might tell us about the strange reality we find ourselves living in. Although, to a reasonably satisfying extent, this thinking often led to something approaching understanding, when confronted with DMT, my scientific mind was left reeling and utterly confounded. I simply could not explain it. There was nothing within the pages of the modern neuroscience literature that could have prepared me for DMT, and my first experience with this astonishing molecule triggered what I knew would be a lifelong dedication to its study.
Like many coming of age just as the internet was beginning to emerge, my introduction to the bizarre reality-switching effects of DMT came via the late great psychedelic bard, Terence McKenna, gleaned from the now (understandably) dated, but still extant, HTML pages of his Alchemical Garden at the Edge of Time, as well as transcripts of lecture fragments scattered across the sparse nodes of the early web — if you wanted to actually listen to Terence speak, you either had to attend one of his lectures in person or send off for cassette tapes by mail order. From these early teenage, mid 90s, forays in cyberspace to my research and writing in the present day, Terence’s ideas have remained a fertile source of inspiration. However, there was one oft-repeated McKenna-ism that resonated particularly strongly with me, uttered during a seemingly casual conversation about crop circles that was subsequently published online:
The main thing to understand is that we are imprisoned in some kind of work of art.”
For some reason that wasn’t entirely clear (it still isn’t), when I first read this simple sentence, something about it shook me and left me shaking. Like one of the Grand Pronouncements from the Upanishads, it seemed to import some deep and profound truth about our reality — if only I could get at it and make sense of it. Why was this the “main thing” to understand? What kind of “work of art” was Terence referring to? And how could we possibly be imprisoned within it? Although exactly what Terence was trying to convey will always be up for discussion, it was clear that this sparkling scintilla of revelation was inspired by his experiences with DMT. And I couldn’t help but think that my attachment to it resulted, in part, from my own. Somewhere inside me, Terence’s Grand Pronouncement buried itself deep and now, many years later, from that seed, my latest book, Alien Information Theory, emerged.
In many ways, Alien Information Theory is admittedly something of a strange book. Although it is ostensibly the culmination of several years of careful research, speculation, thoughtful enquiry, and diligent labouring at a keyboard, as I flick through its colourful pages, I remain partly mystified as to where the book came from. Of course, I’m certainly not claiming any kind of divine inspiration or revealed truth about DMT (and I wouldn’t recommend trusting anyone that made such a claim). But, somehow, from a heady blend of the conscious, subconscious and, perhaps, a touch of the unconscious, a coherent narrative within which DMT plays a central role finally took shape. If, as Terence McKenna asserted, we are indeed imprisoned inside a work of art, the book’s narrative describes how such a work of art might have been constructed and, more importantly, how we might escape it.
If I was forced to say what kind of book it is, I might call it a textbook from the future. The scientific basis for all the ideas discussed, from the fundamental physics and emergence of complexity to the global dynamics of the human brain and the effects of psychedelic drugs, is as accurate as I can make it (and referenced throughout), with a few deliberate simplifications to aid understanding and avoid alienating the non-specialist reader, although I allow myself the indulgence of not hedging my ideas with provisos and caveats at every turn — I am perhaps more definitive in the way I treat certain ideas than some would feel is warranted. But, after all, the book is not intended as a work of scientific rhetoric — I am not trying to convince you that it is true. It is simply my vision of reality that has emerged after incubating an idea. As far as I am aware, it is a uniquely constructed vision, and I present it only as that.
Terence McKenna also said, “the world could be anything.” Well, perhaps, it is something like this.

References

Fredkin, E. (2003). An Introduction to Digital Philosophy. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 42(2), 189-247.
Gallimore, A.R. (2013). Building Alien Worlds — The Neuropsychological and Evolutionary Implications of the Astonishing Psychoactive Effects of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27(3), 455-503.
Davies, P. (2010). The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p.160.
Schneider, S. (2015). Alien minds. In S. Dick (Ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life beyond Earth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189-206.
Dick, S.J. (2003). Cultural Evolution, the Postbiological Universe, and SETI. International Journal of Astrobiology, 2, 65–74.
grahamhancock.com/gallimorea1/
By: u/Venus230
submitted by BakaSandwich to outsideofthebox [link] [comments]


2020.06.17 13:22 rp_tiago My book list with about 1000 titles of philosophy, psychology, history, and more.

It initially started as a “to-read list”, but it quickly became apparent that I could never have time to read everything.
But I kept collecting interesting books, in order to have a good and personalized list that I could pick my next reads from.
I will only post some sections of philosophy, psychology and science because the Reddit character limit prevents me from posting the whole list. If you want to see the full list, which includes art, economics, math, history, literature, religion, and statistics, you can see it here. The blog post also has an index which re-directs you to each section which is easier to browse.
Philosophy
A Key to Whitehead's Process and Reality
A Meaning to Life (Philosophy in Action)
A Philosophical Approach to Quantum Field Theory
A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Philosophy from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century (Routledge Classics)
A Short History of Truth: Consolations for a Post-Truth World
An Introduction to Ontology
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science
At The Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails
Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments
Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny
Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics
Bergson: Thinking Beyond the Human Condition
Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
Causing Death and Saving Lives: The Moral Problems of Abortion, Infanticide, Suicide, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, War and Other Life-or-death Choices
Classic Asian Philosophy: A Guide to the Essential Texts
Consciousness: Creeping up on the hard problem
Consciousness: The Science of Subjectivity
Consciousness and Fundamental Reality
Eastern Philosophy: Key Readings
Eastern Philosophy: The Basics
Embodied Cognition (New Problems of Philosophy)
Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters To Philosophy
Epistemic Rationality and Epistemic Normativity
Ethics in the Real World: 82 Brief Essays on Things That Matter
Ethics: Spinoza’s Magnum Opus
Existentialism Is a Humanism
Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre
Heidegger and Happiness: Dwelling on Fitting and Being
Heidegger's Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Politics and Art
Heidegger: An Introduction by Richard Polt
Hermeneutics: Facts and Interpretation in the Age of Information
Human Nature: Justice Versus Power: The Chomsky-Foucault Debate
Husserl’s Legacy: Phenomenology, Metaphysics, and Transcendental Philosophy
I Seem To Be a Verb
I am Not a Brain: Philosophy of Mind for the 21st Century
Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology
I Am a Strange Loop
In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research
Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy
Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?
Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems
Kierkegaard by Stephen Backhouse
Kierkegaard For Beginners
Letters from a Stoic: Epistulae Morales Ad Lucilium
Levinas' 'Totality and Infinity' : A Reader's Guide
Logic by Wilfrid Hodges
Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius
Meditations by Aurelius
Metaethics by Andrew Fisher
Metazoa: The Evolution of Animals, Minds, Consciousness and Dreams
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False
Mind in Life Biology, Phenomenology and the Sciences of Mind
Mind-Body Problems: Science, Subjectivity & Who We Really Are
Modern Culture by Roger Scruton
Musical Concerns: Essays in Philosophy of Music
Mysticism and Logic: And Other Essays
Natural Goodness
Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics: Twenty-First-Century Perspectives
Nietzsche and Buddhism: A Study in Nihilism and Ironic Affinities
Nietzsche and Zen: Self Overcoming Without a Self
Nietzsche: Untimely Meditations
Noumenautics: Metaphysics — Meta-Ethics — Psychedelics
On Human Nature
On the Shortness of Life
Origins of Consciousness: How the Search to Understand the Nature of Consciousness is Leading to a New View of Reality
Perplexities of Consciousness
Phenomenology of Perception
Phenomenology: An Introduction
Philosopher of the Heart: The Restless Life of Søren Kierkegaard
Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Music: An Introduction
Platonic Mysticism: Contemplative Science, Philosophy, Literature, and Art
Popper by Bryan Magee
Postmodernism
Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson
Reality: A Very Short Introduction
Reason, Truth and History
Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour Of Metaphysics
Schopenhauer by Julian Young
Spinoza: Practical Philosophy
Supersizing the Mind Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension
The Accidental Universe: The World You Thought You Knew
The Basic Writings of Nietzsche
The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man
The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
The Consolation of Philosophy
The Denial of Death
The End of The World: Apocalypse and Its Aftermath in Western Culture
The Event Universe: The Revisionary Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead
The Fundamentals of Ethics
The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality
The Malaise of Modernity
The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World
The Measure of Madness: Philosophy of Mind, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Delusional Thought
The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America
The Myth of Sisyphus
The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Biology
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science
The Philosophy of Schopenhauer
The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time
The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry
The Quotable Kierkegaard
The Rediscovery of the Mind
The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin
The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition of Edification and Awakening by Anti-Climacus
The Sovereignty of Good
The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Surfing with Sartre: An Aquatic Inquiry Into a Life of Meaning
The Tao of Philosophy
The Unique and Its Property
The cambridge handbook of consciousness
Theories of Existence
Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue
Thinking About Music: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Music
Totality and Infinity by by Emmanuel Levinas
Transformations of Mind: Philosophy as Spiritual Practice
Transformative Experience
Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed
Ultimate Questions
Understanding Music: Philosophy and Interpretation
Veil of Isis: An Essay on the History of the Idea of Nature
Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy
Wisdom: From Philosophy to Neuroscience
Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction
Psychology
A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers
A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives
Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body
An Exact Mind: An Artist With Asperger Syndrome
An Introduction to Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence
Awe: The Delights and Dangers of Our Eleventh Emotion
Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral, Cognitive, and Clinical Neuroscience
Biological Psychology by James W. Kalat
Cognitive Neuroscience: A Very Short Introduction
Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind
Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook
Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice
Decision Making and Rationality in the Modern World
Discovering Behavioral Neuroscience: An Introduction to Biological Psychology
Doctoring the Mind: Why psychiatric treatments fail
Embodied Cognition
Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty
Evolution and Human Behaviour: Darwinian Perspectives on the Human Condition
Evolutionary Psychology
Four Billion Year Story of How We Got Conscious Brains
Great Myths of the Brain
Gross Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behavior
Hormonal: How Hormones Drive Desire, Shape Relationships, and Make Us Wiser
How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain
How Humanity Came Into Being: The Evolution of Consciousness
How the Mind Works
Hypnosis and meditation: Towards an integrative science of conscious planes
IQ and Human Intelligence
In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts
Individual Differences and Personality
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Innate: How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are
Introduction to Biopsychology
Joy of Pain: Schadenfreude and the Dark Side of Human Nature
Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil
Lessons from the Lobster: Eve Marder's Work in Neuroscience
Life Lessons from a Brain Surgeon: The New Science and Stories of the Brain
Matter of Mind: A Neurologist's View of Brain-Behavior Relationships
Metaphors We Live By
Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior
Mind Fixers: Psychiatry's Troubled Search for the Biology of Mental Illness
Mind in Motion: How Action Shapes Thought
Mind: A Journey to the Heart of Being Human
Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation
Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them
Nature and Psyche: Radical Environmentalism and the Politics of Subjectivity
Neuro-Apocalypse
Never Enough: the neuroscience and experience of addiction
No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality
Other Minds: The Octopus, The Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness
Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us
Personality and Individual Differences
Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence
Phantoms in the Brain: Human Nature and the Architecture of the Mind
Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind
Physiology of Behavior
Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations
Politics of Social Psychology
Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade
Psychology Express: Social Psychology
Psychology and Sociology Applied to Medicine
Psychology of Music
Psychology's Ghosts: The Crisis in the Profession and the Way Back
Psychopathy: An Introduction to Biological Findings and Their Implications
Radical Embodied Cognitive Science
Rationality and the Reflective Mind
Reading People: How Seeing The World Through The Lens Of Personality Changes Everything
Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour
Sex, Power, and Partisanship: How Evolutionary Science Makes Sense of Our Political Divide
Social Psychology: A Complete Introduction: Teach Yourself
Social: Why our brains are wired to connect
Surfaces and Essences
Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind
The Anatomy of Evil
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
The Book of Human Emotions
The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science
The Brain and the Inner World: An Introduction to the Neuroscience of Subjective Experience
The Brain from Inside Out
The Brain: A Very Short Introduction
The Brain; An Introduction to Neurology
The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind
The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self
The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience
The Emotional Brain Revisited
The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain
The Evolution of Imagination
The Female Brain
The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution
The H Factor of Personality
The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks
The Honest Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves
The Idea of the Brain: A History 'This is a masterpiece'
The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuition Deceives Us
The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil
The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History
The Man With a Shattered World: The History of a Brain Wound
The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art
The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are
The Nurture Assumption
The Optimism Bias: Why we’re wired to look on the bright side
The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics
The Prehistory Of The Mind: A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science
The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist’s Personal Journey Into the Dark Side of the Brain
The Punisher's Brain
The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking
The Ravenous Brain: How the New Science of Consciousness Explains Our Insatiable Search for Meaning
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion
The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty
The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom: From Contemplative Traditions to Neuroscience
The Tell-Tale Brain: Unlocking the Mystery of Human Nature
The Village Effect: Why Face-to-Face Contact Matters
The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See
Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters: From Dating, Shopping, and Praying to Going to War and Becoming a Billionaire-- Two Evolutionary Psychologists Explain Why We Do What We do
Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth
Science
A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Stories in Our Genes
Bad Medicine: Doctors Doing Harm Since Hippocrates
Bad Pharma: How Medicine is Broken, and How We Can Fix It
Bad Science
Blood and Guts: A Short History of Medicine
Brainstorm: Detective Stories From the World of Neurology
Brief Answers to the Big Questions: the final book from Stephen Hawking
Chaos: Making a New Science
Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software
Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes: A Case-Based Guide to Critical Thinking in Medicine
Complexity: A Guided Tour
Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind
Cosmos: The Story of Cosmic Evolution, Science and Civilisation
Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind
Deep Simplicity: Chaos, Complexity and the Emergence of Life
Entropy - God's Dice Game
Evolution: The Whole Story
Genome: The Autobiography Of Species In 23 Chapters: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters
Growth: From Microorganisms to Megacities
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid and I Am A Strange Loop
How to Design and Report Experiments
How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine
Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, From Pointless Bones to Broken Genes
Hype: A Doctor's Guide to Medical Myths, Exaggerated Claims, and Bad Advice - How to Tell What's Real and What's Not
In Evidence We Trust: The need for science, rationality and statistics
Letters to a Young Scientis
Life: The Leading Edge of Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Anthropology, and Environmental Science
Lifespan: Why We Age – and Why We Don’t Have To
Little Science, Big Science…and Beyond
Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray
Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality
Overkill: When Modern Medicine Goes Too Far
Pandora's Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong
Paranormality: The Science of the Supernatural
Pathological Altruism
Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem
Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science
Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust
Scale: The Universal Laws of Life and Death in Organisms, Cities and Companies
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Shadows Of The Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness
Shapeshifters: On Medicine & Human Change
Simply Complexity: A Clear Guide to Complexity Theory
Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime
Statistics in Plain English, Third Edition: Statistics in Plain English
Stuff Matters: The Strange Stories of the Marvellous Materials that Shape Our Man-made World
Superfreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
Testing Treatments: Better Research for Better Healthcare
The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself
The Body: A Guide for Occupants
The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect
The Cybernetic Brain: Sketches of Another Future
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
The Developing Genome: An Introduction To Behavioral Epigenetics
The Diversity of Life
The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease and Inheritance
The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last
The Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children
The Gene: An Intimate History
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being: Evolution and the Making of Us
The Leading Brain: Powerful Science-Based Strategies for Achieving Peak Performance
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
The Man Who Loved Only Numbers: The Story of Paul Erdos and the Search for Mathematical Truth
The Naked Ape: A Zoologist’s Study of the Human Animal
The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine
The River of Consciousness
The Science of Relationships: Answers to Your Questions About Dating, Marriage and Family
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How To Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake
The Spaces Between Us: A Story of Neuroscience, Evolution, and Human Nature
The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism
The Vital Question: Why is life the way it is?
Turing’s Vision: The Birth of Computer Science
Venomous: How Earth’s Deadliest Creatures Mastered Biochemistry
What is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics
Why Science needs Art: From historical to modern day perspectives
Wildhood: the epic journey from adolescence to adulthood in humans and other animals
submitted by rp_tiago to bookclapreviewclap [link] [comments]


2020.06.11 12:34 andrew_baxter Profiting from Put options - Andrew Baxter

This week has seen a significant shake of confidence toward the equity market. As always, the informed investor and trader has choices under such circumstance. These choices are critical, when it comes to your wealth creation. This week, we entered into a couple of options trades, using Put Options to assist.

What is a Put Option?

A put option – in its simplest form, is like owning an insurance policy – if the price of the asset falls, the value of the put option increases. As a result, they can be a little tricky for the newer trader to get their head around ie making money from a fall in the market.
“Weaker” economic growth from China, albeit at 7.7% growth, a big sell down in Gold and a mixed bag from the US reporting season, saw many investors running for the bunker, hard hats on. As I referred to in my China article, earlier in the week, this is not a bad thing, with markets taking a breather and much of the nervous support, well and truly being shaken from the tree.
Regular readers will know we have been a big fan of trading calendar spreads in recent months – instead of buying the stock, we buy a call option and sell a shorter dated call over it, to provide a lower cost and/or more leveraged trading opportunity. Given the recent market nerves, we have instead bought longer dated put options, selling the shorter dated puts as cashflow. This is a classic example of adjusting a strategy to genuinely suit the market and its conditions. Call it Darwinian, but adapting to conditions is the key to survival.
These positions are still running and currently in profit. With an early options expiry in Australia, next week, as a result of ANZAC day on Thursday, the revised expiry date of Tuesday will give us and our clients, the potential opportunity for banking healthy profits early next week.
An alternative use of Put options, is buying the put for protection – a valid portfolio strategy – albeit at the cost outlay of buying the Put/insurance. To overcome this cost, we often use a collar – that is, we buy a put and offset the cost of the put purchase through selling a call option. This provides great peace of mind for the portfolio investor, and should be achievable without using any additional funding.
These are a smattering of the options strategies we are using right now – we also have stock repairs running, not to mention some more aggressive short terms calendar spreads too. For the first time in a good while, this market has provided an excellent opportunity to once again reinforce why we are options specialists – they simply provide so much flexibility for the trader and have the potential to adapt to almost any market circumstances – fulfilling investment objectives from Cashflow and protection, through to directional profit. Cliché it may be, but they simply provide the trader with more “options”.
submitted by andrew_baxter to u/andrew_baxter [link] [comments]


2020.05.07 14:11 CuteBananaMuffin The Last Letter from Dr. Dan B.C. Burisch

The Last Letter from Dr. Dan B.C. Burisch
This message was a response by Dan to another member of the “Projects” and contains plain language about his work, his thoughts, his contact with J-ROD, the extraordinary Doctrine of the Convergent Timeline Paradox, and his beliefs as a person and a scientist.
This is recorded for posterity for it will be those who inherit the future who will discover the truth or falsity of these statements. The first information will be Dan's 'non-technical' statement about his work.
SkyWatch

Quoted as dictated by Dr. Dan Burisch
"Dear Politically Prepared:
This question stirs memories of my best buddy (we will call him “Mike”) and myself when strolling near the Old Chem Building, it seems not so long ago. He met with me, between my having to attend a lecture and going to another session with a seasoned professor trying to straighten up my youthful “problems” at that time with my “melting point unit” technique—but that would be another story. :) [I still hold that it was that particular damned machine’s fault! ... :()...]
Mike told me, between my over-eager questions about the blackops community I was preparing to enter, that a man of science, in our community, was only as good as his ability to explain himself: to his God, other scientists, and the non-science members. Thus far, I pray I have at least fulfilled the first two in the list. I feel comfortable with the first (God), and given the support of the various National Laboratories and their quiet assisting scientists, okay with second. The third seems to be the greatest challenge. If you have college preparation in political science, I am hoping that you have had at least some basic undergraduate preparation in biology. If not, I fear that I will not have the time necessary to explain myself, before I am due to return to the Shady Rest. If I fail, I apologize in advance. For so long I accepted the classical mechanisms that Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Theory provide (together with other genetic/population dynamics data), and extended my science into their accepted belief system: the one that leaps from microevolutionary changes that result in speciation, to the dogma of the common ancestor which links the evolutionary path (albeit dated) of the earliest bacteria to the human. I laughed with my fellow theorists at the Creationist’s “misinterpretation” that inanimate rock gradually yields life. I relegated the Creationist belief system to fanaticism and the Darwinian belief system as science and truth. Frankly, my experience in “training” for Project Aquarius and the J-Rod extraterrestrial biological entity (EBE) did nothing but enhance those beliefs.


https://preview.redd.it/ynsi9o3m3cx41.jpg?width=152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f69aafc689c69203c5a2dd52c7f8347fdcfe791
https://preview.redd.it/lc660p3m3cx41.jpg?width=101&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bdd2f1b082bcd3d2baf36737e38ee2dd568abdcf
https://preview.redd.it/0hmkip3m3cx41.jpg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e5c670b1e15d02724b43fd6c8a31d5d1545044c
As our future plays itself out (within the conditions I have read), the genetic divergence which caused the difference between we (now) and us (the J-Rod species, later) fit well within the same mechanism posited for our gradual development from a prehominid to the modern humans we see today.
The interrelations with the Neanderthals, and our current body shape also promoted me along the trail of Darwinism. This, together with the psychological nature of the J-Rod (a future, evolved, logical, and mathematical/scientific kind), made an easy fit with the dogma of modern evolutionary biology. It was all good, and all my training seemed to match. Then I became his friend.
My experience with the J-Rod and his willingness to suffer for his (and our) kind entranced me. Was his willingness based on logic and/or the preservation of favorable characteristics? Well, it could have been, and that was my supposition before friendship. His current state may have had sequences that drove him to the notions of altruism.
Once the bond was made, I found that while he was aware that his nerve degeneration disorder could have a future treatment, that was not his major concern. Rather, this logical being seemed, by virtue of constant statements, to long to help set straight a series of errors in judgment and events that culminated in our being separated from our spiritual nature. He was searching for something lost, not being driven by something gained (a mutation). I had only really heard about the so called “Orion Beings”.
He only inferred their existence and called (I presume them) as the “Brothers”, but spoke to me of the catastrophe that led to his peoples existence, and his “logical” processing of the need for rejoining because of “something” missing from his and the “Brother’s” DNA; something not based in the sequences of the biomolecule...something he called the “joined resonance”. I soon put 2-and-2 together and looked to him as one of two future species, in present time called ‘Homo sapiens sapiens’, and found humanity to be greater than the sum of its base pairs.
Could adaptive radiation and new speciation account for the future “true” dichotomy, those same natures that we (now) as humans understand to be both parts of us as a single species? Didn’t the base pairs and the preservation of favorable characteristics through fortuitous gene mutations answer to the differences between the J-Rods and the “Brothers”? I asked him.
He replied, (paraphrased as best as I can remember) ‘We are here in your present presence asking for help.’ This statement struck me dumb and made me numb. If the answer was completely found in the material (handled through logical process and with technology) or completely spiritual (handled by the so called “higher human self”) why not deal with it, my dear J-Rods or my dear “Brothers”, yourselves?
I reasoned, and he confirmed, that we now possess something unique together with the necessary technological achievement level, expressing itself from the spiritual through the material, and allowing us to contact a root genesis from whence springs life on earth. He confirmed that this “contact” is allowed only while we are a fused being, with both material and spiritual natures acting in both complementary and internally (and intensely I may add) disagreeing ways, through the “joined resonance”. In an effort to assist him with his particular neuropathy (as no cure or treatment then existed) and to possibly gain insight into the larger scale problem of the fracturing of humanity, I requested to know what he knew of the genesis time.
The J-Rod rapidly approached me and grabbed me, knocking me to the grated flooring of the clean sphere. For the next 20-30 minutes (until my fellow scientists could drag me from the clean sphere—they didn’t have secondary suits ready to immediately enter...and we are all told before entering of the possible things that can go wrong!), he flooded my mind with moving images (like a 3D movie), thoughts and dulled emotions. Some of the thoughts appeared more as metaphors than concretized reality.
He showed me the process of genesis from the perspective of his interaction with the “Brothers”. [So, I guess you could say that it is some kind of extraterrestrial hearsay? :) ] The images, I later found, were close to the ancient mandala of creation, the Sri Yantra. I saw a pearlescent lotus flower emerge from a near spherical crystal matrix, in which resided an object that looked like the Sri Yantra.
The Sri Yantra collapsed into itself through successive stages that looked like the platonic solids, and was carried along like a seed in a river of light to an oscillating drop of water. It entered the drop of water.
The drop of water divided into 12 parts by pinching itself off into 12 separate locations while each location stayed in contact with the seed. The seed divided (or ‘budding’?) itself into each of the 12 drops. I was aware enough to count the parts and see that each parts’ substance coalesced into what appeared as fully functioning prokaryote and eukaryote varieties. I witnessed one of the drops, with rapidly dividing cells, as it seemed to become covered in a dark red material.
The material pushed itself away and a looked into the face of a man. He felt like he was there and I could swear I felt him breathe in. Was this the dawn of humanity? I struggle with the potential and am torn in my soul, to this day, with the possible reality. I didn’t see the destiny of the other drops, but since that time of experience, my thoughts have been very fertile!
For a few years I plodded along with the Serial Endosymbiotic Theory of Eukaryote Origins, (This is a cute way of saying that the so called complex cells are composites of simpler cells that once danced the minuet of “I’ll eat you or you’ll eat me”; then almost mystically agreed to remain one within another giving a competitive edge in survival) and then posited a large virus which may have seeded the garden called earth. (Sound familiar?)
The totipotent virus would necessarily possess a unique genetic package sufficient to be the forerunner of all earth life. I covered this research, as I was still engaged with the Maji in other pursuits and had not informed them of the content of the message from the J-Rod, within the framework of an endosymbiotic research project that was originally called “Mission Genesis”, a staged logical next step from an endosymbiosis project with which I had been involved for a number of years.
(In that early research I was originally looking for ways to extend lengths of time for bacterial and algal samples to remain alive after they had been engulfed as food by protozoa. I was also conducting research into possible chemical signals being exchanged between the foodstuff and the hungry protozoa.)
During the early stages of Mission Genesis, I began looking into the data points and resultant statistics of that very early research project, which had become known as the FBM Project... or Fresh-Brackish-Marine... as salinity levels were employed as one of the variables (oxygen levels another). During that project, I found points at which the hungry protozoa began to behave unusually, that is “predictably”, in their retention period of either respiring foodstuffs (for example a variety of bacteria) or phostosynthesizing foodstuffs (for example algae).
I thought, “My God, have I found some kind of biochemical or behavioral trace to an original engulfment, which according to the endosymbiosis theory ultimately gave rise to mitochondria and plastids like chloroplasts?” Looking further into the data, my team observed clusters of data points in areas that could be easily mathematically related to the Golden Mean / Phi Ratio (an important number in nature), the age of the earth as currently determined by science, and the incorporation/retention rates of viral strands in prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes.
Mission Genesis was then moved forward to confirm the original FBM results and to further elucidate the data points. Further, I determined that it may be good to test these hungry protozoa in the presence of strata of differing ages. I placed this subset of the project in motion just in case variance may be found amongst the behaviors of the hungry little protozoa, when they were in the presence of the minerals from rock of various ages. (Refer the data points relating to the earth’s age!)
Frenchman’s Mountain was determined a nice setting because of the availability of ages that range from 1.7 Billion years (or so) before present to 20 Million years (or so) before present. The research was started at the oldest area, the Vishnu Schist, after what amounted to a flip of the coin among my team members.
Soon after research was initiated, and small samples were being harvested, an unusual event was captured on video during a test of the rock’s electrical properties. As electrical current was applied to the rock, thin heat streams, emanating from that area were observed on infrared. At that time, a heat target was also observed, nearby.
That area was destined to be the target location for the Staar-Flower Astrophysics Unit... and the so called “Stargate” area that is responsive to electromagnetic thumps from the HAARP unit. The infrared streams interested me and I repeated the experiment using a great deal more electricity. This test (May 31, 2001) resulted in a heat liberation I termed a “flare”.
Further tests were conducted using varying electrical pulse levels until the high limit was found that would be detected on infrared, but not visually. That level was employed during microscopic analysis of the rock’s crystals, in the presence of strands of algae. (This ultimately led to the discovery of the so called “ganesh particle”.)
At that point, the Maji asked me ‘...just what the hell...’ I had in mind with all of this and where did the idea come from? I seemed too prepared for the results and was the one that had requested the massive infrared study be concurrently conducted during my early tests at the Vishnu Schist. From their viewpoint I seemed to be working a process with one stated framework, but really was engaging in something quite different. Oops, I was caught! :)
A deal was struck, one that you will readily understand...quid pro quo, anyone? In exchange for knowledge of the “big” interaction with the J-Rod, the day I saw the images, I would be placed in the need-to-know about the Doctrine of the Convergent Timeline Paradox (DCTP), something I was barely allowed to know about...and only because I had told them about some of his (J-Rod’s) responses to my early questions.
As I saw images, that day, of what looked like Inca City, Mars, but in its heyday... I wanted to know how all this figured together. The totality of my knowledge of the DCTP is known information within this community. I doubt I could add anything of interest (save one aspect to come that could possibly utilize the Lotus to assist the J-Rods and “Brothers”).
The thought that the gods of Sumer and other places, were the misinterpreted future humanity; viewed as magical instead of technological, strikes me deeply. What could have they been thinking, to tinker with the pulse of time and alter our genome and history? I hope that my giving to you the association between what is now called Project Lotus and how I came upon the idea, satisfies that part of your request.
After the deal was struck, the research continued. I had long felt and related that should a huge virus have been the progenitor of life on earth, that its artifact would be found in the strata as well as within the living cells. The aforementioned data also leaned me in that direction. The Ganesh Particle, under the correct electrical impulse levels, were observed being liberated from the crystalline rock.
It is currently believed that the Ganesh Particle is a dense collection of electromagnetism or a collection of electromagnetic waves, containing information, and floating in a river of less dense electromagnetism. As each particle (dense collection) passes a nearby living object, the image of the shape of that object appears to bend over and onto the particle, giving the false appearance that the particle is actually such a prosaic item.
When it nears its destination (the method of that target determination not yet known), it hovers above the target cell, then chemically communicates with it by spraying what appears to be chemical substances upon the target cell’s surface. It lands and instantly begins a rapid division process that ultimately results in a bridge of cells that connect the target cell to a nearby cell. The cells of the bridge stop their life sequences at particular points, offering some kind of frozen library from whence the target algae cells could be given necessary information to change and help them.
A tube with a needle-like penetrating end, enters the nucleus of the target cell and the cell at the other end of the bridge. This tube (for purposes of name assignment called the Shiva Linga) winds all of the way through the bridge between the two cells (the target cell and the one on the other end of the bridge). The tube can be observed entering the nuclei of all of the bridge cells between the target cell and the cell at the other end of the bridge. After a few minutes, the bridge detaches and disintegrates.
Biochemistry of the surrounding medium revealed no traces of the substance that created the bridge. It is possible that the bridges are composed of some kind of condensed electromagnetism, taking the form of cells. Damaged cells were exposed to the particles. The actions of the Ganesh Particles resulted in both partial and full restoration of normal cellular function. It has been recently determined that Ganesh Particles will attach to normal cells, use the penetrating tube to enter the cell’s nucleus, but not form bridges to other cells.
The results of the communication between the Ganesh Particles and normal cells remains unknown. The cells of the crossbridges are as tenuous and fragile as clouds.
The restorative ability, ascribed to these particles, is being investigated as a possible treatment for the J-Rods neuropathy. To date, the Ganesh Particles have not been used in vivo, in J-Rods. Theorists are also working on the possible uses of the Lotus (rock emission component + Ganesh Particle + cell interaction component) for everything from ecological remediation to how its use could reset certain aspects within the DCTP. I remain opposed to any application until much more is known about it.
The origin point of these particles has been determined. It’s quartz. That is, the vibrating quartz crystal. I am under direct order that,
“I am not at liberty to at this time announce the form of quartz or how the crystal may accommodate the liberation of Ganesh Particles. That order also holds for known changes in the genome of the cells targeted by the Ganesh Particles.”
There are implicit weaponization issues that cannot be broached in this medium. Albeit this whole paper will be set for some kind of classification I am sure! :) The base pairs, decoded from a world-wide detection of Ultra Low Frequency emissions at 1.618033Hz, appear to match certain base strings found in the target (injured) cells while they are being repaired through the actions of the Ganesh Particle created cells of the bridges.
The strings, working in concert with resident viral components of the genome (what I will call the “Vishnu” part of the Lotus) appear to set in motion a rapid cascade of activation and deactivation gene switches that promote cellular repair. I am not allowed to speak more to that issue at this time. By the way, if you are from Sweetness or working for, or in cooperation with that unit, I won’t help you anyway.
In nearly every paper I have authored about the Lotus, I have given a warning that the Ganesh Particle (what I believe could be the seed of life) is not to be toyed with. Further, that it may play in the higher scheme (the Tree of Life and the Fruit of the Tree of Life), found detailed in sacred literature throughout many cultures. My warnings have seemingly come true in a few instances.
Some attempts to use this project in manners that would immediately lead to an applied technology have resulted in bad things happening to those doing it. Reports of angelic beings, described in a manner very like how the Kerubim allegedly appear, have been detailed to me. A noted occurrence at the Shady Rest resulted in physical injury to certain personnel and massive property damage.
Other reports, centering around the Staar-Flower (originally called Star Flower by me...I guess they like their spelling better!) team at the Frenchman’s Mountain detailed severe physical and emotional injury to personnel, and the loss of personnel altogether. The alleged beings have red-coal-like eyes, multiple (4) faces, and are dangerous to those not heeding warnings to give distance. It remains unknown whether the Frenchman's beings related to the Lotus or the alleged stargate.
The beings reported having done damage at the Shady Rest, were described in a way that could lead one to the belief that they are Kerubim, and such beings allegedly did directly announce that the Lotus is related to the Seed and Fruit of the Tree of Life. I say: be careful! That’s all I can say. I am trying to be careful and respectful.
We have enlisted the assistance of a very professional remote viewer who is attempting to help us clear a sacred path that doesn’t upset those seemingly in spiritual charge of this phenomenon. Results of the remote viewing exercises have assisted us in seeing the phenomenon from a philosophical, spiritual, and sacred geometry perspective. Some may conclude that such application (even in such an advisory capacity) isn’t doing science.
That’s fine with me. We will continue to use it and hold its results in the right frame of reference. As previously stated by me in other papers: the Cosmos, Life preceded the tool of the whim of man, called the scientific method.
In conclusion, I want to thank you for the request, and say that I hope I have in some measure answered to it. I suppose when we arrived at our mutual destiny, we will know whether this project was of benefit. I seek a future not filled with the paranoia of such projects as the Rain Dancer, and its needless introduction of an agent to the sum of humanity.
In that vain and with those things of this project to which I have just (in the last few hours) been made privy and am sadly not allowed to say: I see a future filled with the “Fruit of the Light of Loving-kindness” and “Healing through Togetherness”. Yours very truly,
Dan Burisch
submitted by CuteBananaMuffin to conspiracy [link] [comments]


2020.05.02 09:22 morat136 Journal of Jake Smith, Week 1

Journal of Jake Smith 00 Character Sheet
A/N: Sorry about the wrong name on the character sheet. I had a few goes at this, and I decided to switch back and forth between Jake Smith and Julia Smith. It's like randomizing character gender, except it's Darwinian Randomization.
I prefer a more relaxed game, which is why I have monster evolution speed turned way down. The big baddies will come, but not for a long time. So much so that I'm almost playing it as a post-apocalyptic homesteading simulator, just building a comfortable place in the world. I find it relaxing, please don't judge me too much for being boring. Single point pool character generation, unlimited positive or negative traits with some minmaxing, stats through skills and kills. This is just a very casual super-easy-baby-mode game that I'm keeping notes on in order to get in the habit of at least some minimal degree of roleplaying, and also for the same reason I keep a journal in real life, to stay organized and motivated.
I don't know if anyone will care about this, but if not I'm fine with shouting into the void. As I said, writing it helps me stay focused a little better, and thinking that I'll actually post it helps me stay dedicated to following through on writing it.
Entry 1 8:43 PM , Spring 46th, 1 AC
Dear Diary,
If you're reading this, then either I'm dead, or I've heroically led the rebirth of humanity from its ashes and you're standing in a museum dedicated to how cool I am (and presumably I'm dead in that scenario too). I'm going to assume it's probably the former.
Anyway, I had been staying home in self-quarantine because of all the troubles happening with the Chinese. The evacuation order went out a week ago, but there were also orders to shelter in place, or to start preparing to resist a hostile occupation, or to evacuate to a completely different shelter than the first order advised. There were orders and requests and advice and instructions, and none of it made sense. So I ended up just staying home. I knew that whatever was happening was, but I never really believed it would become my problem. Then this morning, just as I was walking out of the bathroom, a rotting corpse burst in through the window.
The next few hours... I'm not sure I can adequately describe all this fucking bullshit. 01 First Day Map
Okay, so, first thing, I got out of my house and legged it south, away from the city. At first, I stuck to the roads, with a whole conga line of zombies following me. But then, I spotted a Black Dragon in the small swampy area on the edge of town. Not even properly outside the town. Apparently, the neighbors have been breeding mythical beasts in their spare time or something. Luckily, I don't think it saw me, so I kept running south towards the bridge.
I followed the road a short way, but then cut back through the woods to walk along the Southern river bank. The first island I came across didn't have anything in particular on it, but the second had some oddly shaped semi-modern looking building, sparsely furnished, with a dead person in the shower wearing a kevlar vest and carrying a gun and a combat knife, and out back were two cages with zombies in them. I... can't even begin to speculate on what the hell was going on on that island. If they had zombies in cages... were they studying them? Did they know about whatever this is before it happened? Were they trying to prevent it, or did they cause it? If they caused it, that would certainly explain the dead body with a gun in the shower, I'd kill myself too if I were responsible for all this.
Anyway, I decided to swim back to the North shore, see if I might have better luck on my second shot at the city with the advantage of semi-adequate clothing and weapons. I had decent luck luring zombies towards the shore then getting them stuck in the shallow water and killing them with my knife, must have gone through nearly a dozen with only minor injuries, but then an Eyebot showed up out of the bank. At first I found that encouraging. Not just as a comforting reminder of civilization, but also as a target. The zombies seemed quite eager to attack it, but entirely incapable of actually hurting it.
But then, a Policebot showed up and came after me. I managed to kite some zombies towards it as a distraction, but a Riotbot soon followed. I guess the Eyebot doesn't understand what the zombies are, and it thinks me stabbing zombies is really me attacking other citizens. That said... as long as I keep it occupied killing zombies, the robots don't chase after me. So, I kinda just started running around the city, slowly kiting zombies back towards the... battle or slaughter or whatever you'd call it. Once it became apparent that a single Riotbot could solo literally the entire city, I shot the Eyebot and the spare Riotbot it summoned with the shotgun I found on that island. Kinda disturbing actually. I know Riotbots are designed to break up riots, but to see one of them pitted against literally the entire population of the city kinda makes it seem like overkill.
02 Pile of Corpses
I was a little worried when I found a glowing blue zombie that tried to shoot lightning at me (it missed, but still scary). I was afraid it might kill the riotbot. But no, turns out that a shocker zombie and a riotbot literally cannot harm one another. Lightning vs taser, nobody wins, but the loser is that whole crowd of zombies that had been around them. I was going to shoot the riotbot eventually for my own safety, but now I'm curious. If I go to bed tonight, will they still be at each other in the morning? There are no real scientists left alive, so it's really up to me to perform these kinds of experiments. Plus at this point I had almost the whole southern end of town cleared. So, I decided to leave them overnight. It's getting dark anyway.
Entry 2 11:28 AM, Spring 47th, 1 AC
It's been a pretty busy morning. Turns out, riotbots are solar powered. Who knew? So at some point during the night, it ran low on power and scooted off to wherever it came from, leaving a whole load of zombies barely a block away from the house I was sleeping in. So I spent most of the morning clearing them off. That lightning throwing one, the shocker, I took out with my shotgun. Just not worth dealing with, and it still got a good zap in while I was taking aim. The regular zombies were no problem, I just backed up carefully over difficult terrain along the river bank and took them apart while they were trying to balance.
There were some zombies that I noticed letting off little visible sparks of power, not to the point of the shocker, but enough that I suspect they could have given me a good zap. I didn't like the idea of trying to fight them with a metal knife, so I banged a couple 2x4's together into something I like to call a "two-by-sword". It's about as good of a weapon as it is a pun, but honestly I was just happy to have a non-conductive piece of wood between me and them.
Anyway, I did eventually manage to smash them all, which just leaves me with one problem: cleanup. There are literally hundreds of rotting bodies in front of the electronics store. Sorting through their pockets for anything useful will be a massive undertaking all on its own, as will washing off anything I want to keep. If I ever want to be able to drive on that road, I'll also need to find a way to burn all those bodies without also burning down the whole town, but I don't know if I'll ever have the time for that.
There's food rotting in fridges all across the city. The first few days after the power grid went down are going to be the most important time to figure out a way to preserve some of that, or at the very least to eat enough of it to get me through lean times to come. That's a much more time-sensitive task, so I'll have to prioritize it.
The other important task is learning the skills I'll need for long term survival. Especially the first aid books I've found are a necessity, not a luxury, since I did suffer a few minor wounds yesterday. On the one hand, that's a more long term concern (I'm not injured enough to be immediately worried), and on the other hand, there's only so long I can concentrate on studying in a day anyway. Ideally, I would probably be best served to study as long as I can concentrate, then scavenge supplies when I need a mental break. I could even do some scavenging at night, although I'm hesitant to risk getting overwhelmed by monsters I can't clearly see.
Either way, I have another long day ahead of me.
Entry 3 4:43 AM, Spring 48th, 1 AC
I vastly overestimate my ability to overeat. I've downed nearly two gallons of milk today, and I have enough cold cuts to eat tomorrow, and basically I can pretty nearly spend the next week eating food every day that's due to go off the day following. Finding a way to preserve some of this food is starting to seem almost not worth the bother, there's so much canned stuff. Also, the car's full, so there's little point in scavenging much more until I find a better place to put all this crap.
So, I mostly spent the day reading about first aid, and well into the night by candle light because I couldn't sleep. I rewrapped my bandages, now that I have at least some idea of how to do it properly, but I noticed that some of my wounds were completely gone. And not totally minor ones either. Mostly bruising and lacerations, but absolutely things I would expect to take a week or more to heal, and to leave a scar behind. I was fighting for my life all day yesterday and this morning after all. But no, I'm healing far faster than I'd have expected, and without leaving any scarring. I'm glad of course, I'd probably be screwed trying to survive an entire city's worth of zombies if I couldn't heal properly in between fights, but it's still weird.
Entry 4 6:08 PM, Spring 51st, 1 AC
It's been a pretty relaxed couple of days. I've spent a lot of time reading, and a lot of time sorting through filthy clothing looking for electronics to take apart or anything worth cleaning off to use. I set up a little temporary camp by the riverside to free up space in my car. 04 Temporary Camp (A/N: I know I skipped screenshot 03, I'm not changing every one of them to correct the numbering error). I could have used a house, but it's more important to have access to fresh water for boiling to drink, boiling bandages, cooking, and cleaning things.
Tomorrow will mark 1 week of survival out here, so I think it's a good time to take stock of what I've accomplished. I have a nice safe zone with only the occasional straggler zombie to worry about. I have a semi-decent supply of food, although most of it's going to spoil too quickly for my liking. I've learned an astonishing amount about all sorts of subjects, not just about fighting zombies but also about tailoring, cooking, and first aid, all vital survival skills. I also have a fancy Atomic Car that I never expected to be able to afford, although it is a bit damaged and I don't know how to fix it.
If I were going to set goals for myself, I think I would have wanted safety and reliable sources of food and water within the first week, so I'm ahead of schedule. I guess my goal for now should just be to keep bettering myself however I can and leave it at that. Tomorrow night, I'll make a more in-depth list of goals for the next week of survival.
Entry 5 12:19 AM, Spring 53rd, 1 AC
A/N: I spent this entire playthrough thinking that day 1 was Spring 45, but looking back it looks like I dated the first entry on the 46th. I'm not sure if I made a mistake dating that of if I'm misremembering now, but just assume we're counting from Spring 45.
05 First Week. Today was the 1 week anniversary of the end of the world. A week ago this morning, I was living a comfortable life with modern conveniences. Tonight, I'm reading myself to sleep by the light of a pile of burning, rotten organs before going to bed squatting in the home of a dead man.
It's not a bad living really. I have a nicer car than I've ever had, a nicer house, cool clothes. I mean, when would I ever get a chance to wear a bulletproof vest before? I'd really like a hot shower though. Or a fast food burger, or any hot meal I don't have to cook myself. I miss people. I don't think I've said a word out loud since I left home. I'd probably have gone crazy already if I didn't have this journal as a human-interaction substitute.
And of course, there's the army of monsters less than two blocks away. And that's the heart of the matter. I can forage a whole lot of supplies from the area of town I've cleared, but I can't go on indefinitely. And unless I want to try swimming the river again (and leaving most of my belongings behind), I'm backed into a corner here.
I can't go South, West, or Southeast because of the river. I can't go North without fighting my way through the entire city, and trying to push through to the East would let me walk out of the city, but would risk running into that Black Dragon I saw way back when I first set out, and there's no way to get a car through without detouring way around to the North East. My best chance of getting out of here is to head North West, cutting through the Megamart parking lot, but it's not going to be easy. I pulled most of the hordes out of the Megamart parking lot, but I have no idea how many of them are still in the store, and I don't even know what's past that. If it's all forests around the North West of town, then I'll have wasted time and blood getting through there, because what I need is vehicle access.
If I'm setting goals for this week, I guess it has to be finding a route out of town and trying to make it safe. I'll start bright and early tomorrow trying to scout the North end of the Megamart parking lot. Just gotta hope there's a field or something that I can drive through in between the forest and the river. By the end of the month, my hope is to be able to scout beyond the city and see what's become of the world.
submitted by morat136 to cataclysmdda [link] [comments]


2020.04.28 12:53 CuteBananaMuffin Project Aquarius - An Umbrella project with a focus on the study of the EBEs

Project Aquarius - An Umbrella project with a focus on the study of the EBEs
All these projects were known by Dan but further expansion on their descriptions and relationships will be investigated further.
There is also something explained in the briefing documents as a Convergent Time Line and the document seems to explain a relationship that could explain why they are here, what they are doing, and why sampling of the population and life forms on this planet are being conducted.
I have and am submitting documents and background on this man to experts who can help, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, and after hearing similar tales from others who work in the Black World, if nothing else we want this man alive and free in the future along with other scientists and technicians who are working for the greater good.
Whether you believe these stories or not, there is a reason to take them seriously as there is already sufficient evidence of a cover-up. Maybe Majestic and the Committee are acting in the greater interest of humanity, but an uninformed public cannot make a determination. Without solid proof, these stories remain entertaining, but nothing that should detract from our interests in sports or fashion.
According to Dan, the officer he reported to was then Vice Adm. J.M. McConnell who was recently the Director of NSA. He is now retired into civilian life.

https://preview.redd.it/tk71wc1ygjv41.jpg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d9e4748fef1e758359985527b5194af8ef58235
Mr. McConnell joined Booz·Allen in March 1996 after serving as Director, National Security Agency (NSA), the agency responsible for Signals Intelligence and for all Classified Information Security for the U.S. Government.
In addition to serving as Director of NSA, a position he held from 1992 to 1996, Mr. McConnell served as the Intelligence Officer for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS-J2) during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Operation DESERT STORM.
While serving on the Joint Staff, Mr. McConnell regularly briefed the President and his Cabinet Officers, international leaders, and the Senate and House of the U.S. Congress. He also appeared regularly on international television as the U.S. Intelligence Spokesman during the Gulf War. He achieved the rank of Vice Admiral in the U.S. Navy, where he spent more than 25 years as an Operational Intelligence Officer.
This is not something that is proven but is included here as an item for further research. Below is a recreation of the draft of the first page of the Aquarius document written by Dan which mentions McConnell.

https://i.redd.it/8tu0g000hjv41.gif
Letters from USAF Major (ret) Tom Mack to Robert Collins
...regarding J-rod and Dr. Danny Crain Please see below email/letter written to me by a Thomas Mack on February 18th, 1999: Tom Mack was only 51 years old when he died of a stroke last month or in September 2000.
Up to February of 1999 I’d never heard of a Thomas Mack, and unfortunately, did I ever get the chance to meet him: But, all my other contacts who did know him said he was a great guy !
Also, Tom never knew that I already knew some of the people he referred me to: So, with permission from my sources I’m releasing this letteemail to the public: May Tom Mack rest in peace.........Rmc
Subject: Re: Groom Lake Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:38:54 -0800 (PST) From: THOMAS MACK [email protected] To: [email protected] Mr. Collins, I understand you are interested in the Air Force’s Investigation of UFOs. I have read you web site and was very impressed with the postings. I am a retired AF Major. I served from 1972 to 1994. My entire AF career was spent in AF Intelligence. I served with the Air Force Scientific Advisory Group, Groom Lake, NV, from Jun 75 to Apr 83 and from Mar 88 to Oct 94, my retirement date from the AF. I worked on numerous special projects. All involved the reverse engineering of captured UFOs. Yes, I was intimately involved in this operation. I worked with JAROD. We called him the "Puppet Master." The most perfect non-human being in the Universe. He actually had a good sense of humor. He could imitate anyone’s voice. A very clever creature. Comment: See bottom of EBEs 1, 2 ,3 and Jarod I worked on various other projects that involved the collection of UFO related intelligence. I worked with a Special Agent Richard Doty. Agent Doty was our counterintelligence agent. He would conduct operations to prevent the disclosure of our project. A very nifty guy. Very knowledgeable of the subject of UFOs. He was briefed into the program sometime in 1980. The entire program was classified above Top Secret. A classification of COSMIC-MAJIC. The program was called, Majestic-12. We operated under the control of this group. I wish I could go public, I could embarrass the Government. I can prove to the world, that the UFO Subject is real. I just wanted you to know you are on the right track. Keep it up. Find Agent Doty and he’ll should assist you in finding the truth. The last location of Agent Doty was in Albuquerque, NM. He was working for the Highway Patrol or maybe the State Patrol, whatever they call it in New Mexico. Good Hunting. BBSnow
***
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fish Face ? Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:12:39 -0800 (PST) From: THOMAS MACK [email protected] To: [email protected] Rick, STAAR was a special response team formed in the middle 50s. It consisted of experts in several different fields. Their main objective was to counter any Alien threat or attack. I heard about it and read some information on their activities, however, I was not involved with the team. I don’t recall whether the team was still in existence in the 70s. I only knew JAROD by that name or by Puppet Master. Never heard of him being referred to as Smiling Eyes. That could have been EBE-1, who lived from 1947 to 1952. Of course, that was before my time. As for Q-94-109A or the other documents you mentioned. I left in 1994 and was not privy to all the information that was being published. The format seems to be correct, however, I don’t recall the particular documents. Cosmic-Magic was a caveat for our program. Majestic 12 was the category of classification. As for the Cellular Subfraction analysis, Ambient Biochemistry and Subfraction biochemistry, I didn’t have a need to know that type of information. Although I had the special clearance for scientific intelligence, I probably didn’t think it was worth reading. I knew Captain Danny Crain. However, I think he was in DIA. Project Aquarius, R-4800, was the specific program we operated under. Papoose Site 4 was the location. Hope this helps. Tom
------------------------------


Tom Mack on right and Paul McGovern on left. Groom Lake Nevada circa 1970s. There is now a Fire Station sitting where they are walking. Picture sent by Tom Mack’s son.

Project Star Flower
Dan has been working on a project once dubbed “Lotus” now coded as Star Flower 1. This project deals with the original seeding of the earth that started all forms of life. Panspermia holds that life on Earth was seeded from space, and that life’s evolution to higher forms depends on genetic programs that come from space.
It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating.

https://preview.redd.it/soc15su6hjv41.jpg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b43a157e40a86f28d2e9300eef0e99bfe1944ef8
I met Dan one day for coffee and asked him if he believed in the Panspermia hypothesis, that earth was seeded by viruses, viroids, or bacteria from space. He said he did, but had a better explanation for the seeding of earth, an insight gained from his Lotus Project.
This was a surprise, but as he talked about it, the possibilities became most interesting in multiple ways.
The following note is taken from the Lotus Protocols and is a little heavy on scientific terms, but should convey a great dealing of meaning to an educated reader. There will be a glossary at the end of this work that will clarify some of the special terms that Dan uses frequently.
As a matter of REQUIRED reference,
the origins of life in the form of bacterial cells (publicly) currently dates to a little prior to 3.9 Billion Years Ago (BYA), quite an event for the early Archaean Eonwith promitochondrial endosymbionts seemingly entrenching to become mitochondria (proper) by 2 BYAterrestrial cyanobacteria appearing near 1.4 BYAand a significant taxa diversification of photosynthetic protoctists close to 1.3 BYA (correlated to the acquisition of symbiotic photosynthetic plastids)
(Annotation from Reference, and used to follow: See - Margulis, Lynn, "Symbiotic Planet" [2000] and "Five Kingdoms-..." [1988]).
Is it not interesting that the issue of the possible polyphyletic origins of those plastids remains open, yet dogma is pronouncing near certainty for the predecessor of mitochondria, or is it, really? Let’s take a close look at the contentions of Dr. Margulis.
In the search for mitochondrial origins, the varieties to look toward for guidance (according to Margulis, "Symbiotic...") would be either bdellovibrio (a small 0.3 micrometer pseudomonad that is aggressive to larger bacteria and even burrows into them, which respires its food sources and releases carbon dioxide) or paracoccus (an oxygen respiring micrococcus of diameter 1 micrometer [individual sphere]).
The problem, here, is this:
As late as 1981, citations of Margulis’ work carried statements that a likely category of mitochondrial precursor was an anaerobic phototrophic bacterium (purple nonsulfur bacteria, that synthesize organic compounds by direct incorporation of carbon dioxide).
A big difference? You bet your life! A crack in her theory? It is certainly a problem.
The crack is not found in the relevance of the new biochemical findings, alone. In the time from 1981 (really somewhere before and it was then cited in texts such as by Wallace, King, and Sanders in "Biology: the Science of Life", before fourth edition) until now, research has been progressing on the contents of mitochondria, and a striking resemblance has been found between those contents and those of bdellovibrio.
So, it appears that Margulis has moved her "chip of support" from the basic biochemistry of the purple nonsulfurs to the pseudomonads.
This is the mistake! (Not that the purple nonsulfurs were the end-all in the debate! You will soon see, quite the contrary!) Under the current line of thinking, as the mutualistic symbiosis progressed between endosymbiont and host, redundancy was screened out of the endosymbiont.
The endosymbiont no longer used a large portion of its biochemistry (and conversely its genomic components), as independent existence allegedly became a thing of the past.
Does this mean, necessarily, that the remaining "left over" biochemistry correlations (no matter how integral to the functioning of both the mitochondrion and that of the counterpart under question) must posit a singular direct taxonomic linkage between the two? Nope, not under serial endosymbiotic theory.Can this be akin to "cell apoptosis" for the theory? No. Not just yet.Is the correlation between the two (that is diminution of redundancy) correct? Probably so.The complementary behavior between mitochondrion and nucleus would infer as much. Is the origin of the relationship, a macroevolution from a pair of independent organisms necessitated for us to now see the refinement from redundancy? No.What say you of evolution?Are the first acts of progressing organismic metabolism (a shared dance of catabolism and anabolism) one imbued with a negotiated hyperbolic peace between predator and prey (see: Margulis, Lynn, "Microcosmos", 1997) or does life follow the apparent path of the Universe, a series of transparently stoic acts of Cosmos from Chaos? (Pick up a text of a creation myth.)
In defense of one or the other, I would reference to
"http//unisci.com/stories/19992/0621995.htm” for hierarchy through "productivity" (Drossel, Barbara, University of Manchester in England), conservation of gene clusters (Andersson, Siv G.E. and Eriksson, Kimmo "Dynamics of Gene Order Structures and Genomic Architectures", Department of Molecular Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Sweden; as published on the internet, and a refutation to the Dawkin’s "Selfish Gene Theory" as published by Unisci "Daily University Science News" Efros, David R., [New England Complex Systems Institute], with an opinion defense by Dr. Bar-Yam, Yaneer, 04/25/2000).
I remain prepared (and would encourage) to debate the issuance of my opinions, relative the relevance between the aforementioned orders of magnitude."
A little further on, he has further reflections on the endosymbiotic theory proposed by Margulis...
"I believe that the scientists, including Margulis (but no mistake I have great admiration for her work), are too busy focusing on the newer biochemistry, then jumping from one foot to another in the search for the closest present biochemical counterpart, all the while praying that Gregor Mendel will justify their beliefs with results of Polymerase Chain Reaction. I have been guilty of the same.


Photomicrographs taken by Dan of Ganesh particle
Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do.— Lynn MargulisArtificial selection never produces wholly new characteristics. There is no evidence that natural selection without the input of new genes does either.
The notion that mutation and recombination can compose new genes is implausible.
There is scant evidence that mutation and recombination can compose functional new genes that differ from any known predecessor by more than, say, a dozen essential nucleotides.
The evolution of antifreeze glycoproteins in Antarctic cod presents problems for both programs.
Evolution does not appear to be gradual, contrary to Darwin’s firm prediction.
The standard theory cannot explain why the coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species.
Convergent evolution is a surprise not well-explained by neo-Darwinism.
Macroevolutionary progress is not accounted for by neo-Darwinian microevolution.(3)
In accordance with new ideas on evolutionary biology beyond the neo-Darwinistic approach Dan finds that,
1) life comes from space2) the genesis seed has evidence of intelligent design and operation (not alien intelligence, but a cosmic creator intelligence).
Here is what he has to say about it:
“ Since my beginning within M_-# I have had the distinct honor of having been assigned to some of the most interesting projects known to humankind. From the work of Project Aquarius to the sands of the Iraq desert, I have attempted to (Com1: Block text set...) ...serve my country with the greatest effort and efficiency.
I deeply hope that my latest assignment, in Africa, has served the interests of the United States of America. For the past decade, I have been slowly formulating a thesis, bringing together the research of the greatest minds of humanity to attempt an answer to the ages old question of our origins. That formulation culminated in the L Project, later named Project S Fl.
In a nutshell, we have found the key elements to put together an ancient virus that not only once seeded our beautiful planet, but whose integral parts still play an act of continuous creation within the intricate web of life. That play, we believe, pushes forward the complexity found within the biosphere, to perfectly match species diversity to the other elements of our living world.
This sounds wonderful, however, just as there exists subtle behavioral cues within child’s play, so to we believe that such also resides, hidden within the conjoined L. Being armed with the most ancient DNA codes, having the power to manipulate the dance of the L; does not give us sufficient knowledge, the authority of its maker, or the right itself to conjoin, synthesize, or otherwise taunt it or its awesome powers.
Our span of control exists within the narrow range of careful study. To do more, we risk humanity..."
Much of what Dan describes is very technical and deals with protocols and procedures.
I am currently contacting friendly scientists to help decipher some of this. There is more to all of this which has been added from other confidential sources. It is always easy to dismiss these extraordinary claims, but I believe in going beyond skepticism and investigating every nuance. There is much going on here that will finally make sense to those with keen intuition.
We discussed DNA, but it is not just the structure of the molecules in DNA, but the resonances and vibrations that relate to extraordinary mathematical harmonies.
If DNA is seeded on planets, as Dan believes through a virus that split into two components, then cosmic seeding of planets is the norm and those planets which have developed the right conditions (geological intelligent design or the gaia hypothesis) where atmosphere, lithosphere, and magnetic field parameters are all fine-tuned for the development and flourishing of life by life itself.
Gaia Hypothesis’...the physical and chemical condition of the surface of the Earth, of the atmosphere, and of the oceans has been and is actively made fit and comfortable by the presence of life itself. This is in contrast to the conventional wisdom which held that life adapted to the planetary conditions as it and they evolved their separate ways.’’
Elsewhere, in relation to the definition of Gaia we find the following:
"The entire range of living matter on Earth from whales to viruses and from oaks to algae could be regarded as constituting a single living entity capable of maintaining the Earth’s atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts..
[Gaia can be defined] as a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback of cybernetic systems which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."
And in another section we find speculative thoughts concerning Gaia, and one’s which probably appealed to many of the readers who supported the various environmental groups, but at the same time provoked the hard-lined scientific critics of the Gaia Hypothesis:
"To what extent is our collective intelligence also a part of Gaia? Do we as a species constitute a Gaian nervous system and a brain which can consciously anticipate environmental changes?" [p147]
The Gaia Hypothesis has often been described by commentators as one of the most provoking singular ideas to have been put forward in the second half of this century, and while it struggled to be formally accepted in the fields of the traditional sciences in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, it certainly managed to provoke its share of debate. During this period, Lovelock prepared for a second publication.
Another theory discussed by Dan is that of endosymbiosis. This theory is propounded by Lynn Margulis and goes hand-in-hand with the Gaia Hypothesis.
“Effectively, Lynn Margulis contended that symbiosis, not chance mutation, was the driving force behind evolution and that the cooperation between organisms and the environment are the chief agents of natural selection -- not competition among individuals. She says that,"Darwin’s grand vision was not wrong, only incomplete. This was a little much to handle for some of her critics, and at first her theory was not accepted, especially in its original appearance alongside that of the Gaia Hypothesis: There were two fundamental components of Lovelock and Margulis’s Gaia theory:The planet is, in Margulis’s words, a "super organismic system"Evolution is the result of cooperative not competitive processes.
At that time in 1969, her paper was rejected by over a dozen scientific journals because no one knew how to evaluate it.
Finally, after a long and hard struggle against peer-reviewed resistance, she prevailed. The extent of vision and perseverance with her emerging theory is often measured by the reviews of critics.
It is therefore quite rewarding to find that one of the leading critics of the Gaia Hypothesis, Richard Dawkins, in reference to the separately contrived theory by Margulis states the following:
"I greatly admire Lynn Margulis’ sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it."
At the present time in contemporary scientific circles, what was once regarded as an absurd speculation is now taken as self-evident truth.
Most recent biology textbooks include reference to Lynn Margulis’ theory of endosymbiosis, the majority of them put it forward as the most likely explanation of the origin and evolution of life on the planet we know as Earth.”


https://i.redd.it/agvd2boghjv41.gif
https://i.redd.it/701cugoghjv41.gif
https://i.redd.it/lodx1hoghjv41.gif
https://i.redd.it/5girdjoghjv41.gif
https://i.redd.it/a445wooghjv41.gif
https://i.redd.it/897lbfoghjv41.gif


lsehood is easy,truth so difficult.George Eliot
Sincerely,
Bill HamiltonExecutive DirectorAstrosciences Network
submitted by CuteBananaMuffin to conspiracy [link] [comments]


2020.04.21 23:17 Frosty-Frolics Many ideas, nothing gets done. Help?

I (28M) have been recently diagnosed by my therapist as having a combination of Anxiety and ADHD, as well as Aspergers (ASD), something me and my family had suspected for a long time.
I grew up a straight-As kid, raised on the promise of a bright future. Fast forward to now, it's far from the case. I think many of you can relate.
Having spent 6 years in college, I haven't been able to keep a paid job to date. I have "survived" through unpaid internships, and have only got one actual job. This job was somewhat technical and decently paid. Alas, I couldn't hold it for a month. Between spending the hours on the verge of falling asleep, not getting along with co-workers and haunted by the sheer ugliness of the grey numbers, the documents, the excel sheets, the "interface software"... Within roughly 30 days I was wishing I was dead rather than there.
It is needless to say that I am seen as a disappointment to my family, poorer folks who really worked hard to provide me and my siblings with a good education. And I, who was supposed to be the smart of the bunch, feel crushed by the weight of these expectations. After years of living alone, I'm back home, and although my parents are supportive, it hurts to hear their occasional vented, bitter comment.
My glimmer of hope is my creativity, perhaps also my curse. I came up with "worlds" and stories of my own ever since I was a young kid. As a form of escapism from the real world, I'll admit. And having become a fan of fictional media (films, video games, books, etc), I have often thought to myself "I could do something like this." And thus I have come up with a myriad of ideas. Dozens of stories, from horror to fantasy to drama, even ideas for video games. Those with whom I shared the ideas were positively impressed. One day, someone working on the animation industry said one such idea was "extremely workable", strongly advising that I make it happen.
And here kicks in the ADHD... I have already studied what I should do. Yet when the moment to write comes, I freeze, feel intimidated by something I don't fully comprehend myself. I look for excuses to do whatever else, just sink my senses into whatever video game is at hand, all too feel horrible about it as I see the days turn to weeks. Weeks of nothing done, with me seeing my youth escape me. On top of it all, there is the matter of the dreaded Master's thesis. As you might have guessed it, it has been "on hold" for about three years now. My mother in particular is extremely disappointed about this. Predictably, this thesis undone keeps me awake at night. Whenever I try to sit down and do something about it, of course, I am stricken with all the mentioned above but also quite the sadness.
Not all has been hopeless. I used to be a musician. Last year, I wrote and recorded a rock album by myself with the help of a friend who owns a studio. Again, all those who have heard it claim it is surprisingly good. And again, even after having had recorded it, the task of looking for a way to "get it out there", find a label or something, has been sucked to the twister of incomplete works...
Thinking about it is very depressing. It often crosses my mind that I have simply failed at life. That perhaps from a darwinian perspective, I failed to adapt to survive, and all else is the delaying of the ultimate fate of those who fail to adapt. I am very ashamed. Hastening this crosses my mind sometimes. But I cannot submit my family to such monstrosity, I love them too much.
So, I'm looking to fight through this. Just writing here is part of that exercise. I have a therapist that has helped a lot recently. He insists that I make a plan, stick to it, and correct my sleep schedule, which I have dragged through the mud for years. I would really like to hear the thoughts of other people with ADHD, however. Someone hear might just have the perspective I need.
I will admit I was very hesitant about coming forward. I can't help but be afraid that this might just be seen as an annoyance or just cringe. But I'll see how it goes. Thank you for your time, I would be happy to hear your insight and advice.
submitted by Frosty-Frolics to adhd_anxiety [link] [comments]


2020.04.21 23:14 Frosty-Frolics Many ideas, nothing gets done. Please help me escape this.

I (28M) have been recently diagnosed by my therapist as having a combination of Anxiety and ADHD, as well as Aspergers (ASD), something me and my family had suspected for a long time.
I grew up a straight-As kid, raised on the promise of a bright future. Fast forward to now, it's far from the case. I think many of you can relate.
Having spent 6 years in college, I haven't been able to keep a paid job to date. I have "survived" through unpaid internships, and have only got one actual job. This job was somewhat technical and decently paid. Alas, I couldn't hold it for a month. Between spending the hours on the verge of falling asleep, not getting along with co-workers and haunted by the sheer ugliness of the grey numbers, the documents, the excel sheets, the "interface software"... Within roughly 30 days I was wishing I was dead rather than there.
It is needless to say that I am seen as a disappointment to my family, poorer folks who really worked hard to provide me and my siblings with a good education. And I, who was supposed to be the smart of the bunch, feel crushed by the weight of these expectations. After years of living alone, I'm back home, and although my parents are supportive, it hurts to hear their occasional vented, bitter comment.
My glimmer of hope is my creativity, perhaps also my curse. I came up with "worlds" and stories of my own ever since I was a young kid. As a form of escapism from the real world, I'll admit. And having become a fan of fictional media (films, video games, books, etc), I have often thought to myself "I could do something like this." And thus I have come up with a myriad of ideas. Dozens of stories, from horror to fantasy to drama, even ideas for video games. Those with whom I shared the ideas were positively impressed. One day, someone working on the animation industry said one such idea was "extremely workable", strongly advising that I make it happen.
And here kicks in the ADHD... I have already studied what I should do. Yet when the moment to write comes, I freeze, feel intimidated by something I don't fully comprehend myself. I look for excuses to do whatever else, just sink my senses into whatever video game is at hand, all too feel horrible about it as I see the days turn to weeks. Weeks of nothing done, with me seeing my youth escape me. On top of it all, there is the matter of the dreaded Master's thesis. As you might have guessed it, it has been "on hold" for about three years now. My mother in particular is extremely disappointed about this. Predictably, this thesis undone keeps me awake at night. Whenever I try to sit down and do something about it, of course, I am stricken with all the mentioned above but also quite the sadness.
Not all has been hopeless. I used to be a musician. Last year, I wrote and recorded a rock album by myself with the help of a friend who owns a studio. Again, all those who have heard it claim it is surprisingly good. And again, even after having had recorded it, the task of looking for a way to "get it out there", find a label or something, has been sucked to the twister of incomplete works...
Thinking about it is very depressing. It often crosses my mind that I have simply failed at life. That perhaps from a darwinian perspective, I failed to adapt to survive, and all else is the delaying of the ultimate fate of those who fail to adapt. I am very ashamed. Hastening this crosses my mind sometimes. But I cannot submit my family to such monstrosity, I love them too much.
So, I'm looking to fight through this. Just writing here is part of that exercise. I have a therapist that has helped a lot recently. He insists that I make a plan, stick to it, and correct my sleep schedule, which I have dragged through the mud for years. I would really like to hear the thoughts of other people with ADHD, however. Someone hear might just have the perspective I need.
I will admit I was very hesitant about coming forward. I can't help but be afraid that this might just be seen as an annoyance or just cringe. But I'll see how it goes. Thank you for your time, I would be happy to hear your insight and advice.
submitted by Frosty-Frolics to ADHD [link] [comments]


2020.03.24 05:12 Databoy19 Well I tried folks but....

I have known this Qultist for 50 years. Her family was/is loaded. Her older brother dated my sister. He committed suicide in the early 70s. They are a genetic hot mess. She got into Q. I have been following her. Trying to find opportunities for reason. Tonight I saw a couple of super crazy posts about Da Storm. So I let her have it. I did take a screen shot of one of the exchanges but I am having trouble figuring out how to erase her name. But who cares. These people are in serious trouble. Im at a loss. And now I’m blocked. The virus is a fill in your fave conspiracy. Suggestions? No wait. It IS a Darwinian moment. Sigh.
submitted by Databoy19 to Qult_Headquarters [link] [comments]


2020.03.19 18:22 Matslwin Poul Bjerre (1876-1964)

Poul Bjerre (1876-1964) was a pupil of Freud. His Drömmarnas naturliga system (Natural system of dreams) is the most systematic study of dreams to date, I believe. Sadly, it is not translated to English but exists only in the Swedish original and in German translation. He divides the dreams into different categories, such as 'portrayal', 'objectification', 'distancing', 'negation', etc. The dream function tries to establish harmony and overcome stagnation, in order to evade neurosis and maintain life's flow. 'Objectification' is when a content of personality, which one would better throw out, is presented as another creature or person—as non-ego. 'Distancing' is when the content becomes even more remote, e.g. travels away. 'Negation' occurs, for instance, when a stagnant wholeness of personality is negated, as when teeth begin to drop out, destroying the obsolete garniture of personality. To Bjerre, "death and renewal" is the central dialectic of life.
Poul Bjerre was involved with the muse of psychoanalysis, Lou Andreas-Salomé. But Freud pulled her away from him, because Bjerre had the audacity to challenge some of Freud's tenets. Bjerre corresponded with Freud and Jung. He tells of his method of writing to Freud. He first wrote a temperamental letter, then he threw it away and wrote a civilized letter. Freud appropriated Bjerre's "death-renewal cycle", but misinterpreted it (some would argue) in terms of the death drive versus the eros drive. In the image from the psychoanalytic congress, 1911 (here), one can see Bjerre sitting leftmost.
Bjerre was a prolific author, responsible for the introduction of psychoanalysis in Scandinavia—not an easy task. Despite this, he is today more or less forgotten. He also took Hitlerism to task. Bjerre put emphasis on the conscious standpoint, and did not only reckon with unconscious motives. Morality was very central to him. Consciousness has the capacity to stand aloof from the world, creating in personality a state of harmony and permanence. It is not far-fetched that the unconscious, via the dreams, seeks to achieve psychological harmony. The unconscious does not simply strive after an unconscious life according to instinct. Unlike in Freud, there is not a generic conflict between unconscious instinctuality and a cultural super-ego.
Bjerre termed this natural tendency 'assimilation'. An autonomous function of the psyche tries to achieve psychological harmony, because it improves general health and perseverance. This tallies with a Darwinian view, i.e. to preserve the life of the organism. For example, in Drömmarnas naturliga system, Bjerre discusses the monogamous-polygamous conflict. He exemplifies with dreams of patients where the monogamous and matrimonial solution is sought by the dream function. This, of course, gives the lie to the Freudian instinctual and polyamorous wishes. The unconscious standpoint is "civilized", as long as it leads to harmony and avoids inner conflict. After all, there is nothing as disruptive and splitting as polyamorous adventures, when one's feelings become divided. The social consequences are damaging, especially in Bjerre's own time.
Bjerre's writings are at times down-to-earth, but he also wrote very philosophical books, almost theosophical. This might explain why he is neglected by unidealistic psychoanalysts (besides the fact that he disagrees with Freud on essential things). Central to Bjerre is death and stagnation, to be overcome by an effort of renewal. Coercion, in terms of life's obligations and necessities, leads to mechanization and psychological death. It must be countered by the liberation of the life spirit. But his death-renewal cycle was horribly distorted by Winnicott, who projects it on the pathological narcissistic cyclic movement, between omnipotence and depressive destructiveness. Rather, the forces of stagnation depend on a mechanization of life typically brought about by a fixation on tenets of consciousness. On Bjerre's view, individuation can mean destruction, in the sense of breaking out of an old shell. It's just that people are reluctant to abandon old habits of life, including cognitive habits. This, he says, is what underlies neurosis.
The psychology of stagnation is eminently portrayed in the film Revolutionary Road (Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, 2008). The script could have been written by Bjerre himself. It's about a couple whose life seems ideal, but who feel dead on the inside. DiCaprio says that only during the war did he feel truly alive. The couple plans to build a new life in Paris, to bring about a renewal, but they never took this step. Instead, they get a nice house and build a family. So they achieve a comfortable life, which is what you can expect from life. But then stagnation ensues—every day is like every other day. Since death and renewal was not consciously realized, the intelligent film Revolutionary Road ends in tragedy.
Mats Winther
submitted by Matslwin to psychoanalysis [link] [comments]