Eric Schmidt's Perfect AI War-Fighting Machine

wired  |  “Let's imagine we’re going to build a better war-fighting system,” Schmidt says, outlining what would amount to an enormous overhaul of the most powerful military operation on earth. “We would just create a tech company.” He goes on to sketch out a vision of the internet of things with a deadly twist. “It would build a large number of inexpensive devices that were highly mobile, that were attritable, and those devices—or drones—would have sensors or weapons, and they would be networked together.”

The problem with today’s Pentagon is hardly money, talent, or determination, in Schmidt’s opinion. He describes the US military as “great human beings inside a bad system”—one that evolved to serve a previous era dominated by large, slow, expensive projects like aircraft carriers and a bureaucratic system that prevents people from moving too quickly. Independent studies and congressional hearings have found that it can take years for the DOD to select and buy software, which may be outdated by the time it is installed. Schmidt says this is a huge problem for the US, because computerization, software, and networking are poised to revolutionize warfare.

Ukraine’s response to Russia’s invasion, Schmidt believes, offers pointers for how the Pentagon might improve. The Ukrainian military has managed to resist a much larger power in part by moving quickly and adapting technology from the private sector—hacking commercial drones into weapons, repurposing defunct battlefield connectivity systems, 3D printing spare parts, and developing useful new software for tasks like military payroll management in months, not years.

Schmidt offers another thought experiment to illustrate the bind he’s trying to get the US military out of. “Imagine you and I decide to solve the Ukrainian problem, and the DOD gives us $100 million, and we have a six-month contest,” he says. “And after six months somebody actually comes up with some new device or new tool or new method that lets the Ukrainians win.” Problem solved? Not so fast. “Everything I just said is illegal,” Schmidt says, because of procurement rules that forbid the Pentagon from handing out money without going through careful but overly lengthy review processes.

The Pentagon’s tech problem is most pressing, Schmidt says, when it comes to AI. “Every once in a while, a new weapon, a new technology comes along that changes things,” he says. “Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt in the 1930s saying that there is this new technology—nuclear weapons—that could change war, which it clearly did. I would argue that [AI-powered] autonomy and decentralized, distributed systems are that powerful.”

With Schmidt’s help, a similar view has taken root inside the DOD over the past decade, where leaders believe AI will revolutionize military hardware, intelligence gathering, and backend software. In the early 2010s the Pentagon began assessing technology that could help it maintain an edge over an ascendant Chinese military. The Defense Science Board, the agency’s top technical advisory body, concluded that AI-powered autonomy would shape the future of military competition and conflict.

But AI technology is mostly being invented in the private sector. The best tools that could prove critical to the military, such as algorithms capable of identifying enemy hardware or specific individuals in video, or that can learn superhuman strategies, are built at companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple or inside startups.

“The big challenge that the US military faces going forward is how to rapidly adapt commercial technologies for military use faster than competitors,” says Paul Scharre, a vice president at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank, and the author of Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, a forthcoming book about AI and geopolitics. Scharre notes in his book that the Pentagon’s share of global R&D spending has declined from 36 percent in 1960 to 4 percent today.

“We're trying to build a 21st century military with 20th century bureaucracy.”

Paul Scharre, Center for a New American Security

The US DOD primarily works with the private sector through large defense contractors specialized in building expensive hardware over years, not nimble software development. Pentagon contracts with large tech companies, including Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft, have become more common but have sometimes been controversial. Google’s work analyzing drone footage using AI under an initiative called Project Maven caused staff to protest, and the company let the contract lapse. Google has since increased its defense work, under rules that place certain projects—such as weapons systems—off limits.

Scharre says it is valuable to have people like Schmidt, with serious private sector clout, looking to bridge the gap.

 

 

Superbowl Pre-Game Featured Dancing Robotic Hunter-Killer Police Drones

newsweek  |  Viewers were left "creeped out" by Jason Derulo's robotic backup dancers during a pre-Super Bowl performance.

Derulo performed at the NFL's TikTok Tailgate event to get fans excited for Super Bowl LVII, but one aspect of his performance didn't have the desired effect.

Derulo was joined on stage by a number of human backup dancers, who in turn, were also joined by a collection of choreographed robotic dogs. Social media users shared their concern at the technological advancement, as some likened it to an episode of Black Mirror.

Oh god they’re normalizing robot dogs in the super bowl pre-show thing pic.twitter.com/BwqVJoefoK

— Read Jackson Rising by @CooperationJXN (@JoshuaPHilll) February 12, 2023

"Okay I don't know if anyone else is watching the pre-show performance from Jason Derulo but these little dancing dog robot things are kind of creeping me out," wrote South Dakota-based TV anchor Lauren Soulek. Her sentiments were echoed far and wide across Twitter by other viewers who watched Derulo perform his song "Saturday/Sunday."

"I can't be only one little creeped out by the robot dogs in [Jason Derulo's] pregame performance," wrote user @kingmeup21. "Anyone else creeped out by the robots on the pregame stage?" asked @GinQueenRunner.

TV reporter Devo Brown was also unimpressed. "Umm Jason Derulo pre game performance...ya it was ok. However, I could do without the creepy robot dogs as backup dancers."

Some Twitter users like @JakeMGrumbach likened the animals to the "Black Mirror robot attack dogs." The Season 4 episode "Metalhead" featured faceless four-legged robots hunting down humans.

One user, however, replied that their 9-year-old loved the performance. "What [...] noo they're so cute lol," wrote @CosmicBunnyBabe responding to all of the hate aimed at the robots.

The specific designers of the robots are unconfirmed, but they look similar to the Boston Dynamics robotics that often go viral for their technological advancements. The four-legged designs were similar to their product Spot, though they normally come in yellow, and Derulo's backup dancers were sporting the color gray.

There is often a debate about these humanoid robotics. Recently, social media users debated whether a robot trained to open a door was "cool or creepy."

Briahna Joy Gray, national press secretary for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, suggested the inclusion of the dogs were an effort to help bring the technology into the mainstream. "I see the deep state is using Jason Derulo's Super Bowl performance to normalize the Boston Dynamics dogs," she wrote with a crying laughing emoji. Not buying into the hype, Twitter user @hominigritz replied with a deadpan, "Robot assassin dogs will never feel normal to me."

Derulo refers to himself as the "King of TikTok" in a number of pre-performance videos, and while the inclusion of the robotic dogs may have "creeped out" some viewers, it ensured his performance trended and was discussed across social media.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

 

Trump Had Amassed A Paper Trail Documenting Snitches And Switches Used Against Him

Newsweek  |  The two U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation tell Newsweek that while some of the intelligence documents might have dealt with nuclear weapons, that was not the main focus.

"Trump was particularly interested in matters related to the Russia hoax and the wrong-doings of the deep state," one former Trump official tells Newsweek. "I think he felt, and I agree, that these are facts that the American people need to know." The official says Trump may have been planning to use them as part of a 2024 run for the presidency.

The high-level U.S. government officials explain that it was not necessarily the classification level of the documents nor even their subject matter that investigators were focused on.

But it is accurate to think about what was retrieved at Mar-a-Lago as two distinct sets of documents—those that are being openly sought under the Presidential Records Act and those that formed part of Donald Trump's stash.

"What we're talking about here is not just documents that the Archives was seeking to fulfill the provisions of the Act," one of the officials says. "They were also after some number of documents that they considered more sensitive, but also documents that they felt the former president had no intention to return."

The decision to search Mar-a-Lago was prompted by concern that the documents might be moved as the negotiations dragged on, or that former President Trump might use them, revealing secrets or revealing intelligence sources and methods (including agents on the U.S. payroll or other secrets, such as what was being intercepted electronically).

The Affidavit, Justice said in their opposition to unsealing the Affidavit, would reveal "highly sensitive information about witnesses, including witnesses interviewed by the government; specific investigative techniques; and information required by law to be kept under seal."

In laymen's terms, the Affidavit reveals human sources ("witnesses") and the possibility that "specific investigative techniques," including information from the intelligence community about what they believed Donald Trump had, or about surveillance of Mar-a-Lago, would be compromised.

"I know it is hard for people to understand that the classification of the documents was not the main concern per se," says one of the high-level government officials. "It is Donald Trump's potential law-breaking that is the focus. That applies to the Records Act stuff. As for his private stash? I don't know what that material is, but Justice was alarmed that Trump was planning to keep his possession secret."

"People are too focused on sensitivity and not the law," says the other official. It is what they knew (or believed) about Donald Trump's plans that prompted the search now. The official, who is confident that the search was legally valid, questions whether it was the smartest move. "We've still got to unpack all of these terms—nuclear, espionage, classified—so the public understands. That will be tricky because the issues and technicalities are in fact extremely complicated."

Certain Cause Of Trump's Predicament

johganz |  “But, John, are you saying we should use the Justice Department politically? With the express purpose of getting rid of someone you don’t like.” Kind of! As Trump’s intellectual defenders love to remind us, there’s ultimately no neutral administration of justice, everything is political, and when you get the state apparatus in your hands you use it beat up on your enemies and help out your friends. So, in part, these are their rules. (If you start talking about how you are gonna apply the thought of Carl Schmitt when you administer the state, I may start to get the sense you are my enemy.)

Also, let’s not play innocent. Historically speaking, the F.B.I. has always been used “politically:” it was used against Reds, Nazis, Reds again, the KKK, civil rights leaders, black power leaders, Nazis again etc. A lot of this was abusive and terrible and you know where my political sympathies lie, but this was because the political establishment implicitly or explicitly viewed these groups as threats to the United States itself. In many cases, they were not. (Yeah, yeah, I know what you are gonna say, “but J. Edgar Hoover, blah, blah, blah”—The fact is that Hoover lasted so long because powerful people thought he was useful and mostly right.) But here is a case where the real deal has come along: a bonafide domestic threat to the constitution. People these days are willing to call everything from annoying college students to crummy D.E.I. consultants “totalitarian threats to democracy” or whatever, but when a big, fat threat to democracy is standing right there, suddenly everyone is like, “Well…it’s a little complicated, isn’t it?” No, it really isn’t. And, in this case, we don’t have to break the law or do anything underhanded: just actually try to uphold the law for a change and stop playing little political games around it.

A political class that can’t defend the constitutional order and the rule of law is worse than useless: it’s actually conspiring with its enemies. Trump attacked the very heart of our system of government. If the system can’t respond to that forcefully it doesn’t deserve to exist anymore. Let’s stop pretending Trump is anything but a mobster and a would-be tyrant. In this case, prudence demands action.

Bruce Reinhart Presided Over Trump v. Clinton - And - Authorized The Mar-A-Lago Raid Warrant?

kunstler  |  It should be pretty obvious that the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago was an attempt to seize evidence likely to be used in former President Donald Trump’s civil lawsuit in the Southern Florida Federal District Court against Hillary Clinton and associated defendants in and out of government for the defamation and racketeering operation known as RussiaGate — AND in any future criminal proceedings that might grow out of congressional investigations-to-come against officials past and present in the DOJ and FBI. The idea is to tie up all those documents in a legal dispute about declassification so they can’t be entered in any proceeding.

Over the weekend, independent journalist Paul Sperry reported that many of the same FBI officers involved in the Mar-a-Lago raid happen to be subjects of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of RussiaGate. Have some of them already been hauled into grand juries? We don’t know. But, with the Mar-a-Lago caper, it looks like the law enforcement apparatus of the federal government is seeking to suppress evidence of its own long-running criminal enterprise.

The parallel purpose of the raid was to find — or perhaps plant — documents that might be used in a scheme to disqualify Mr. Trump from running for office again. The January 6^th show-trial in Congress has failed to galvanize the country’s attention, and may have foundered in its attempt to find grounds for a criminal referral against the former president that would take him off the playing field. So, now this.

Momentous legal quarrels that arise out of the Mar-a-Lago raid may evolve into a constitutional crisis that the captive news media can use as a smokescreen to divert the public’s attention from any balloting shenanigans going into the November election. At least it will shove any other issues off-stage in the run-up to the midterm. Is it a miscalculation?

The choice of going to federal magistrate Bruce Reinhart for the Mar-a-Lago warrant sure looks crude and desperate. Only weeks ago, he was presiding over the Trump v Clinton lawsuit. How did that even happen, given Mr. Reinhart’s role defending Jeffrey Epstein’s associates — many of them Clinton-connected — in the 2007 sex-trafficking case? And only after the spectacularly weird act of switching sides from the federal prosecution team to Epstein’s defense team. Not to mention Mr. Reinhart’s record of public statements denouncing Mr. Trump. There are twenty-five other magistrates who rotate their duties in the Southern District of Florida, why pick him?

It all shapes up as a systematic effort to obstruct justice by the US Department of Justice. They’ve been doing it consistently since 2016 in all matters pertaining to Mr. Trump, and it is a big reason that the country is now viciously coming apart. This is just a continuation of the same seditious treachery that went on with James Comey releasing his classified interview memo concerning Mr. Trump to The New York Times via his attorney friend from Columbia University, Daniel Richman; and the ensuing dishonest Mueller investigation the leak provoked; and the Crossfire Hurricane operation run by Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, and Rod Rosenstein; and the illegal entrapment and prosecution of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn; and the serial misrepresentations to the FISA court; and the illegal coordinated maneuvers in impeachment #1 between Rep. Adam Schiff, ICIG Michael Atkinson, the National Security Council, and CIA-agent Eric Ciaramella posing as a “whistleblower”; and more recently, the mischief around the FBI’s conjured-up Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping scheme; and the FBI’s role in turning the January 6, 2020, election protests into a riot at the US Capitol.

Vision Neither Directly Or Accurately Reports Reality

frontiersin |  Sensory perception is often the most striking proof of something factual—when we perceive something, we interpret it and take it as “objective”, “real”. Most obviously, you can experience this with eyewitness testimonies: If an eyewitness has “seen it with the naked eye”, judges, jury members and attendees take the reports of these percepts not only as strong evidence, but usually as fact—despite the active and biasing processes on basis of perception and memory. Indeed, it seems that there is no better, no more “proof” of something being factual knowledge than having perceived it. The assumed link between perception and physical reality is particularly strong for the visual sense—in fact, we scrutinize it only when sight conditions have been unfortunate, when people have bad vision or when we know that the eyewitness was under stress or was lacking in cognitive faculties. When people need even more proof of reality than via the naked eye, they intuitively try to touch the to-be-analyzed entity (if at all possible) in order to investigate it haptically. Feeling something by touch seems to be the ultimate perceptual experience in order for humans to speak of physical proof (Carbon and Jakesch, 2013).

We can analyze the quality of our perceptual experiences by standard methodological criteria. By doing so we can regularly find out that our perception is indeed mostly very reliable and also objective (Gregory and Gombrich, 1973)—but only if we employ standard definitions of “objective” as being consensual among different beholders. Still, even by meeting these methodological criteria, we cannot give something in evidence about physical reality. It seems that knowledge about the physical properties of objects cannot be gained by perception, so perception is neither “veridical” nor “valid” in the strict sense of the words—the properties of the “thing in itself” remain indeterminate in any empirical sense (Kant, 1787/1998). We “reliably” and “objectively” might perceive the sun going up in the morning and down in the evening; the physical relations are definitely different, as we have known at least since Nicolaus Copernicus’s proposed heliocentricism—it might also be common sense that the Earth is a spheroid for most people, still the majority of people have neither perceived the Earth as spherical nor represented it like that; one reason for this is that in everyday life contexts the illusion of a plane works perfectly well to guide us in the planning and execution of our actions (Carbon, 2010b).

Limitations of the Possibility of Objective Perception

The limitations of perception are even more far reaching: our perception is not only limited when we do not have access to the thing in itself, it is very practically limited to the quality of processing and the general specifications of our perceptual system. For instance, our acoustic sense can only register and process a very narrow band of frequencies ranging from about 16 Hz–20 kHz as a young adult—this band gets narrower and narrower with increasing age. Typically, infrasonic and ultrasonic bands are just not perceivable despite being essential for other species such as elephants and bats, respectively. The perception of the environment and, consequently, the perception and representation of the world as such, is different for these species—what would be the favorite music of an elephant, which preference would a bat indicate if “honestly asked”? What does infrasonic acoustics sound and feel like? Note: infrasonic frequencies can also be perceived by humans; not acoustically in a strict sense but via vibrations—still, the resulting experiences are very different (cf. Nagel, 1974). To make such information accessible we need transformation techniques; for instance, a Geiger-Müller tube for making ionizing radiation perceivable as we have not developed any sensory system for detecting and feeling this band of extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation.

But even if we have access to given information from the environmental world, it would be an illusion to think of “objective perception” of it—differences in perception across different individuals seem to be obvious: this is one reason for different persons having different tastes, but it is even more extreme: even within a lifetime of one person, the perceptual qualities and quantities which we can process change. Elderly people, for instance, often have yellowish corneas yielding biased color perception reducing the ability to detect and differentiate bluish color spectra. So even objectivity of perceptions in the sense of consensual experience is hardly achievable, even within one species, even within one individual—just think of fashion phenomena (Carbon, 2011a), of changes in taste (Martindale, 1990) or the so-called cycle of preferences (Carbon, 2010a)! Clearly, so-called objective perception is impossible, it is an illusion.

Illusory Construction of the World

The problem with the idea of veridical perception of the world is further intensified when taking additional perceptual phenomena, which demonstrate highly constructive qualities of our perceptual system, into account. A very prominent example of this kind is the perceptual effect which arises when any visual information which we want to process falls on the area of the retina where the so-called blind spot is located 

Interestingly, visual information that is mapped on the blind spot is not just dropped—this would be the easiest solution for the visual apparatus. It is also not rigidly interpolated, for instance, by just doubling neighbor information, but intelligently complemented by analysing the meaning and Gestalt of the context. If we, for example, are exposed to a couple of lines, the perceptual system would complement the physically non-existing information of the blind spot by a best guess heuristic how the lines are interconnected in each case, mostly yielding a very close approximation to “reality” as it uses most probable solutions. Finally, we experience clear visual information, seemingly in the same quality as the one which mirrors physical perception—in the end, the “physical perception” and the “constructed perception”, are of the same quality, also because the “physical perception” is neither a depiction of physical reality, but is also constructed by top-down processes based on best guess heuristic as a kind of hypothesis testing or problem solving (Gregory, 1970).

Binaural Beats Exist Solely As A Consequence Of The Interaction Of Perceptions Within The Brain

amadeux  |  If two tuning forks of slightly different pitch are struck simultaneously, the resulting sound waves and wanes periodically. The modulations are referred to as beats; their frequency is equal to the difference between the frequencies of the original tones. For example, a tuning fork with a characteristic pitch of 440 hertz, if struck at the same time, will produce beats with a frequency of six hertz.

In modern investigations tuning forks are replaced by electronic oscillators, which can supply tones of precisely controlled pitch, purity, and intensity. Beats are produced when the outputs of two oscillators tuned to slightly different frequencies are combined electrically and applied to a loudspeaker. Alternatively, the signals can be applied individually to separate speakers and the beats will still be heard. The result is the same whether the tones are combined electrically and then converted into sound, or converted into sound separately and then combined.

A quite different phenomenon results when stereophonic earphones are used and the signals are applied separately to each ear. Under the right circumstances beats can be perceived, but they are of an entirely different character. They are called binaural beats, and in many ways they are more interesting than ordinary beats, which in this discussion will be called monaural.

Monaural beats can be heard with both ears, but one ear is sufficient to perceive them. Binaural beats require the combined action of both ears. They exist as a consequence of the interaction of perceptions within the brain, and they can be used to investigate some of the brain’s processes.

The physical mechanism of monaural beats is a special case of wave interference. At any instant the amplitude of the resulting sound is equal to the algebraic sum of the amplitudes of the original tones. The signals are reinforced when they are in phase, that is, when the peaks and nulls of their waves coincide. Destructive interference diminishes the net amplitude when the waves are in opposition. The pure tones used in these experiments are described by sine waves’ the resulting beats are slowly varying functions similar to, but not precisely conforming to, a sine wave.

A beat frequency of about six hertz, as in the example given above, would sound something like vibrato in music (although vibrato is frequency modulation rather than amplitude modulation). If the interval between frequencies is made smaller, very slow beats can be produced, down to about on per second, to perceive. Rapid beats, up to about 30 hertz, are heard as roughness superimposed on the sound, rather like a Scotsman’s burr. With still greater intervals beats are not heard; the two tones are perceived separately.

Beats are rarely encountered in nature because in nature sustained pure tones are rare. They abound, however, in mechanical devices. In an airplane, jet engines operating at slightly different speeds may produce a very strong-beat, often recognized only as a feeling “in the pit of the stomach.” Acoustical engineers can filter out the whine of the engines, but the slow vibrations are difficult to suppress. Occupants of apartment houses may be annoyed by beats produced by machinery, such as two blowers running at different speeds, but they will have a hard time finding the source.

On the other hand, beats are used to advantage where frequencies must be determined precisely. Electrical engineers compare the output of a test oscillator with that of a standard oscillator by detecting the beats produced when their signals are combined. The tuning of pianos is another process that depends on beats. Typically the piano tuner will first listen for the beats produced by a tuning fork of 440 hertz and the A above middle C, and tighten or loosen the A wire until the beats slow to zero. He then strikes the A key and the D key below it and tunes the latter wire until 10 beats per second are heard. That frequency is produced by the interaction of the A string’s second harmonic, or second multiple (2 x 44 0 = 180), and the D string’s third harmonic (3 x 290 = 870). In this fashion, key by key, the piano is tuned; in theory it could be done even by someone who is tone-deaf.

Binaural beats were discovered in 1839 by a German experimenter named H. W. Dove, but as late as 1915 they were considered a trivial special case of monaural beats. It was argued that each ear was hearing sounds intended for the other. This extraneous result could be eliminated by placing the tuning forks in separate rooms, with the subject in a third room between them, and guiding the sounds through tubes to each ear. It was necessary to carefully seal each tube to the head, however, and another objection was raised; that sound presentation to one ear could be conducted through the skull to the other.

Bone conduction is well established, and indeed some hearing aids operate on this principle, although sound is attenuated a thousandfold from ear to ear. The possible contribution of bone conduction to the perception of binaural beats is eliminated, however, by the use of modern stereophonic earphones. Such earphones have padding, often liquid filled, to insulate the head from the sound source, and are designed explicitly to prevent conduction effects. Indeed, stereophonic recordings played through earphones can sound unnatural because the instruments seem too isolated.

The difference most immediately apparent between monaural and binaural beats is that binaural beats can be heard only when the tones used to produce them are of low pitch. Binaural beats are best perceived when the carrier frequency is about 440 hertz; above that frequency they become less distinct and above about 1,000 hertz they vanish altogether. No person I have tested reports hearing beats for frequencies above 900 hertz. Experimental conditions, particularly the intensity of the sounds and the type of earphones used can affect the results, however, and other investigators report detecting beats produced by tones up to almost 1,500 hertz. At the other end of the scale beats also become elusive. Below about 90 hertz the subject may confuse the beats with the tones used to produce them.

J. C. R. Licklider of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed a technique when he was working at Harvard University to measure a spectrum of binaural beats [see upper illustration on page 102]. He adopted the frequency of one oscillator until the interval was large enough so that the beats seemed “rough”; then he noted the frequency of the unchanged reference oscillator. Next he changed the setting of the reference oscillator and repeated the procedure. In this way the range of perception of each subject was recorded.

Another distinguishing characteristic of binaural beats is their muffled sound. Monaural beats produced with sounds of equal intensity pulse from loudness to silence, as their wave form would suggest. Binaural beats, on the other hand, are only a slight modulation of a loud background. I have tried to estimate the depth of the modulation, and it seems to be about three decibels, or about a tenth of the loudness of a whisper. In order to help subjects recognize these relatively faint effects I usually present signals with monaural beats and then suddenly change to the binaural mode. With tones of about 440 hertz it usually takes two or three seconds for the subject to recognize the binaural beats.
-

If The Conscious Mind Is Fitted To The Photon Interaction, What Is The Subconscious Mind Fitted To?

What You Call Your Conscious Mind Is Fitted To The Photon Interaction

The Conscious Mind is Fitted to the Photon Interaction What is normally referred to as the "conscious, thinking mind" is simply a functioning temporal (rigorously, chronotopological) mechanism that is painfully built up in the individual's awareness (his mind in the greater sense of both thought and awareness, whether monocular or multiocular) by training, conditioning and experience. Its functioning is largely conditioned by one's 90% or so attention to visual stimuli (to the partial reality remaining after photon interaction has been invoked, and to the memory-collated ordering of vast numbers of such photon interactions) and by one's cultural conditioning - which itself has been almost exclusively conditioned and shaped by the monocular photon interaction at base root. Thus, since the beginning of man, (Bearden radically overstates the case here. It would be more accurate to say that since a time definite in the western epoch) his conscious, rational mind has been trained and constructed to function almost exclusively in basic correspondence with the photon interaction, and his experiential reality consists of the partial reality stripped from fundamental reality by photon interaction. All "perceived differences," e.g., are created by this deep mind-set. As has been previously pointed out, ⁶ the solitary human problem responsible for all man's inhumanity to his fellow man is directly dependent upon man's almost exclusive detection, observation, perception, and conception of "difference" between humans, these "differences" being due exclusively and totally to the fitting of men's conscious minds to the photon interaction's monocular separation of spatial reality from nonspatial reality, i.e., to ∂/∂T (L³T) => L³

Such well-nigh total devotion to, and enslavement by, photon interaction also is responsible for the scientist's well-nigh total devotion to, and enslavement by, the present imperfect and incomplete three laws of logic, as presented by Aristotle. The depth of that devotion and enslavement is evidenced by the fact that the resolution of such paradoxes as Heraclitus's problem of change have eluded the best minds of humanity for several thousands of years. Indeed, these paradoxes cannot be resolved by the conscious, rational mind in its present state, for it has been most firmly constructed and fitted to function in accordance with the photon interaction.⁷ One cannot hope to resolve any logical paradox by using only those same logical methods that found the situation to be paradoxical in the first place!

The Limits Of Western Mentality REDUX (Originally Posted 10/27/07)

The Conscious Mind is Fitted to the Photon Interaction What is normally referred to as the "conscious, thinking mind" is simply a functioning temporal (rigorously, chronotopological) mechanism that is painfully built up in the individual's awareness (his mind in the greater sense of both thought and awareness, whether monocular or multiocular) by training, conditioning and experience. Its functioning is largely conditioned by one's 90% or so attention to visual stimuli (to the partial reality remaining after photon interaction has been invoked, and to the memory-collated ordering of vast numbers of such photon interactions) and by one's cultural conditioning - which itself has been almost exclusively conditioned and shaped by the monocular photon interaction at base root. Thus, since the beginning of man, (Bearden radically overstates the case here. It would be more accurate to say that since a time definite in the western epoch) his conscious, rational mind has been trained and constructed to function almost exclusively in basic correspondence with the photon interaction, and his experiential reality consists of the partial reality stripped from fundamental reality by photon interaction. All "perceived differences," e.g., are created by this deep mind-set. As has been previously pointed out, ⁶ the solitary human problem responsible for all man's inhumanity to his fellow man is directly dependent upon man's almost exclusive detection, observation, perception, and conception of "difference" between humans, these "differences" being due exclusively and totally to the fitting of men's conscious minds to the photon interaction's monocular separation of spatial reality from nonspatial reality, i.e., to ∂/∂T (L³T) => L³

Such well-nigh total devotion to, and enslavement by, photon interaction also is responsible for the scientist's well-nigh total devotion to, and enslavement by, the present imperfect and incomplete three laws of logic, as presented by Aristotle. The depth of that devotion and enslavement is evidenced by the fact that the resolution of such paradoxes as Heraclitus's problem of change have eluded the best minds of humanity for several thousands of years. Indeed, these paradoxes cannot be resolved by the conscious, rational mind in its present state, for it has been most firmly constructed and fitted to function in accordance with the photon interaction.⁷ One cannot hope to resolve any logical paradox by using only those same logical methods that found the situation to be paradoxical in the first place!

The Limits Of Western Mentality

The Conscious Mind is Fitted to the Photon Interaction What is normally referred to as the "conscious, thinking mind" is simply a functioning temporal (rigorously, chronotopological) mechanism that is painfully built up in the individual's awareness (his mind in the greater sense of both thought and awareness, whether monocular or multiocular) by training, conditioning and experience. Its functioning is largely conditioned by one's 90% or so attention to visual stimuli (to the partial reality remaining after photon interaction has been invoked, and to the memory-collated ordering of vast numbers of such photon interactions) and by one's cultural conditioning - which itself has been almost exclusively conditioned and shaped by the monocular photon interaction at base root. Thus, since the beginning of man, (Bearden radically overstates the case here. It would be more accurate to say that since a time definite in the western epoch) his conscious, rational mind has been trained and constructed to function almost exclusively in basic correspondence with the photon interaction, and his experiential reality consists of the partial reality stripped from fundamental reality by photon interaction. All "perceived differences," e.g., are created by this deep mind-set. As has been previously pointed out, ⁶ the solitary human problem responsible for all man's inhumanity to his fellow man is directly dependent upon man's almost exclusive detection, observation, perception, and conception of "difference" between humans, these "differences" being due exclusively and totally to the fitting of men's conscious minds to the photon interaction's monocular separation of spatial reality from nonspatial reality, i.e., to ∂/∂T (L³T) => L³

Such well-nigh total devotion to, and enslavement by, photon interaction also is responsible for the scientist's well-nigh total devotion to, and enslavement by, the present imperfect and incomplete three laws of logic, as presented by Aristotle. The depth of that devotion and enslavement is evidenced by the fact that the resolution of such paradoxes as Heraclitus's problem of change have eluded the best minds of humanity for several thousands of years. Indeed, these paradoxes cannot be resolved by the conscious, rational mind in its present state, for it has been most firmly constructed and fitted to function in accordance with the photon interaction.⁷ One cannot hope to resolve any logical paradox by using only those same logical methods that found the situation to be paradoxical in the first place!

What "A Midwestern Doctor" Had To Say About Carlson's Broadside On The Medical Industrial Complex

Tucker Carlson takes a look at the effects the COVID vaccine is being shown to have on people. pic.twitter.com/G7WlV8BKLe

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 26, 2022

I was in the doctors lounge this evening with two other docs.

Tucker came on. A 20 minute monologue about Big Pharma and the corruption Thereof. I simply could not believe what I was seeing.

He took 20 minutes and decimated opiates, SSRIs, COVID vaccines, Fauci, Birx, and the Biogen Alzheimer’s drug.

If you want an idea what I am barraged with daily even by the MSNBC crowd, look no further. I hear these same issues from patients all day long.

Tucker clearly has his problems but he also clearly has balls of steel. The execs at Fox with Big Pharma providing about half their revenue must clearly know the gig is up or they would not be allowing this on TV.

People are getting more enraged by the day. It is clips like this that make me certain the day of reckoning is coming soon.

Both the other docs in the lounge tonight, MSNBC watchers, agreed with me that there is not a thing in this monologue to be quibbled about.

Since the mid 2000s, right when Tom Cruise did his SSRI interview with Lauer – Tucker played part of it – the original Lilly Pfizer papers have been a standard the world over on how data is manipulated and how relative risk is abused. I have used them as examples of inappropriate data manipulation in classes for more than a decade. Most physicians with a questioning mind have known these drugs were a problem for years. And this is the first time I have ever heard this discussed on national TV in my life.

The Birx clip he features “I knew they were not going to be effective stopping the spread of the virus” was played today in a conference. Immediately followed by the Fauci, Walensky, Biden, and Maddow clips detailing that the vaxxes were a dead end, that you would never catch it, etc.

The ID fellow presenter, whose hospital and clinics are now being overrun with vaxxed and boosted COVID patients, after the above clips were played, in a dull monotone said, “One needs to ask WHAT exactly did these people know and more importantly WHEN did they know it?”

I could scarcely believe it. That kind of talk would have garnered intense guffaws and probably a trip to the chairman’s office just a few weeks ago. Now silent resignation.

The Fauci clip where he is asked about menstrual problems and states “we are going to study it….”. An epidemiologist commented “Seriously, you forced this upon millions of young women, and ONLY now we are going to study it? Did anyone have a hint this was a problem before the mandates? Knowing Pfizer’s history, my gut tells me they knew all too well.”

And yet another zinger from a retired ID professor – “If they knowingly released a non-sterilizing vaccine into an acute coronavirus pandemic and forced millions to take it, that may be the greatest act of medical malpractice in the history of this whole world.”

I am slowly seeing the return of “science” in my profession. Tough questions are being asked. Finally.

What do I feel tonight ….. the sun is shining, the scales are falling out of the eyes…and we are on the Road to Damascus. This may take quite a bit longer than you would expect, but I am fairly sure this is going to get really interesting

Study mRNA Neovaccinoid CytoToxicity Not Why People Don't Want To Get Jabbed...,

NEJM  |  Social media and other digital platforms provide the opportunity to collect data on vaccine hesitancy in nearly real time^70,71; they also allow new methods of analysis⁷² and the opportunity to investigate the effect of vaccine sentiment on actual vaccine uptake and vaccine-preventable diseases. Facebook collaborated with Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Maryland to collect survey data on a wide variety of behaviors related to the Covid-19 pandemic.⁷³ Starting in January 2021, Facebook users who agreed to participate in the survey were asked about their attitudes toward Covid-19 vaccines and reasons underlying vaccine hesitancy.

Although data collected on social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, may not be representative, since the users of the platform are not a random sample of the population, the data have aligned well with other, less frequently compiled survey data that are available for select topics and populations. In addition, sometimes data collected through online platforms are the only available information about vaccine hesitancy (e.g., when large-scale surveys have not been conducted). Furthermore, the large samples and the speed with which data are collected and made available make real-time analysis possible for what has become a volatile topic. As data collected through social media platforms become more widely used, we anticipate that validation studies will be conducted, with improvements made in the sampling, weighting, and interpretation of the data.

The large volume of timely data on vaccine hesitancy has provided an opportunity to develop spatially detailed estimates of vaccine hesitancy (i.e., mapping by location). For the United States, surveys administered through Facebook have been used to estimate vaccine hesitancy according to week and ZIP code. These spatial analyses show that vaccine hesitancy varies substantially within a county. For example, vaccine hesitancy ranges from 7 to 49% across ZIP codes within the rural Stearns County, Minnesota. Such widespread variation within a county is common in all U.S. states (Figure 2).

Spatially refined estimates of vaccine hesitancy have proved to be useful in local efforts to increase vaccination rates.^75,76 The information has been used by community outreach programs to tailor their efforts to local areas that have the greatest need. Other groups have used local patterns to help to decide where to provide mobile vaccination clinics and where to initiate other measures for reducing barriers to vaccination. Local information can also be used to monitor the effect of local interventions, including the effect of various types of vaccination mandates.

In the future, large and complex data sets on vaccine hesitancy, often referred to as big data, can be analyzed according to spatial identifiers such as ZIP code and various individual characteristics, including race or ethnic group, age, sex, and occupation, which can help to further microtarget vaccination outreach efforts. This information is also potentially critical for monitoring progress toward vaccine equity.

One of the various challenges in taking such an approach to scale and applying it globally is the inequity in the access to and reach of digital media. As the digital revolution unfolds globally, the global health community must keep pace. The consequences of not doing so are loud and clear, as we have seen in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic with regard to the rapid spread of misinformation and consequent vaccine hesitancy.