Category Archives: science

Cult deplaforms, uncult replatforms

replaformed-4-f

What is a cult? It is a faith based organization that disallows exit. The open secret is that faith need not be supernatural, but can easily be theoretically provable, and yet still be just faith. Since human science controls are typically unethical, political organizations are faith based. Even worse, fundamentalist political organizations that are both corrupt and more focused on rules than identity may make exit impossible, becoming a stealthy cult.

The human conscience grows stronger to recognising risk as it is exposed. In some cases opponents may be few, but unanimous political support at scale indicates oppression. People then carry the flag of their faith based organization as though it gives them wizardly powers of truth, joyous in their lack of opposition. In reality they are supporting an organization that limits opportunities for external criticism and has removed the opportunity of exit of their perceived opponents. There are always externalities, a lack of their observers indicates the absence of freedom.

When a rule focused hierarchy faces opposition of it’s procedures or plans, it’s mechanizations slow. Warnings elicit groans and frustration from committees and meetings as the cost of ordinary business begins to rise. Risk/impact analysis can elude even well meaning actors and resources are squandered. If a hierarchies leaders are flawed through incompetence, naivete, or actively defecting, the hierarchy can suffer and ultimately fail.

If they hear every risk, resources are squandered, but if they miss even one high impact risk, the result is the same. Hierarchies need to get this right. High frequency risks have high currency(social or monetary) rewards for discovery, a feedback loop is naturally created. The low frequency risks are the ones that pose typical systemic threats.

Cults are dangerous because the low frequency risk examination is blocked with ultimate authority, or in other words, physical force. Just like any hierarchy it blocks the disruptions caused by low frequency risks to cut costs (or something worse from corrupt psychopathic defectors) You have been deplatformed, so you can not repair the system, and because it is an ultimate authority, you can not exit it. Traditionally, all non mainstream thinkers are trapped in cult.

This systemic risk has been accepted because of a lack of resources to correct it. Books and widely distributed publications, and the freedom of speech that protected them, have been the only externalities. These publications require enormous resources to utilize them. A lifetime can be spent popularizing a single externality enough that public pressure forces the review of it’s risk. Thanks to technology, this limitation is no longer the case.

The Internet has the power to be the uncult. It can identify the intent of ‘cost cutting’ to ignore or externalize low frequency risks. Risks without feedback loops no longer need to be deplatformed, they can be replatformed. Hierarchies can no longer hide behind natural resource limits. A simple address, redirecting people to low frequency risk resource sites can be employed for no cost, rather than cutting them off all together.  Use their old platform to point to their new one. Allowing people to explore the risk for themselves, possibly leading to a failure avoiding fork.

The only coherent argument against this policy in general, is the lack of people’s ability to govern themselves in democracy, which I wholly reject. Democracy works because hierarchy attracts psychopaths and their behavioural spectrum, and the furthest people from that center are the least likely to harbour opportunistic ill intent. Make a personal change, absent clear and present danger, only accept the uncult. Hierarchies that replaform instead of deplatforming. It’s free, so anything less is a rejection of the viability of democracy itself.

Is data, science?

beaker

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of
true science.” –Charles Darwin

“My laboratory is my paper” –Albert Einstein

Poor Darwin. A political football of his time. While he supported his theories with data, many people insisted, as some do today, his work was not science. Yet as time passes his science has been treated as fact by more and more people. How useful is Darwinism? How did this change occur? More importantly does all science need to survive a public political fight to be treated as knowledge?

One needs look no further than Isaac Newton to find science nobody disputes today. There was controversy at the time, but it was limited to the cosmic implications. Newtonian physics is demonstrable using repeatable experiments. A series of steps could be followed to demonstrate and even separate it’s components. The formulas to predict how objects interacted with each other and gravity were demonstrably true.

The problem came with the orbital components. The same rules that predicted projectile parabolas could be adapted to predict the planets orbits (ultimately with some small errors) But there is no way to create a second identical solar system to add or remove components and test each part of the theory. There is no way to create a control. Without a control Newtonian physics was reduced to predictions. People passed the time waiting for his predictions to come true by arguing about them.

Einstein by comparison was extremely lucky. For decades the vast majority of the science community didn’t even understand his theories. His theories were impossible to demonstrate or test. No physical mechanism was available to do so. Few had the context to even argue about his theories, so they didn’t. Einsteinian physics was almost entirely predictions, but he caught no flak.

While the world slowly caught up, Einstein’s predictions have enjoyed wild success. His work is a great demonstration of the value of predictions in science. The science community didn’t refute Einstein in his time, it just largely ignored him. Room was made for his predictions to be tested at a later date.

Which brings us to Darwin. Like Einstein, many of his theories had no way to be conclusively tested at their conception. The theories matched existing data and you could tease out some components of it. It wasn’t until DNA was discovered in 1953 that the tools to reach an absolute conclusion on Darwin were known to be possible. But unlike quantum physics, people understand husbandry and paternity. Everyone had their two cents to give. Solid data with deceptive relevance justified genocides and terrible experiments. The label of ‘science’ ran amok.

With Darwin, the act of simple testing, of manipulating variables and comparing the results to controls could turn unethical. To come up with a system of learning about our own species required prediction to avoid terrible acts. A new truth became known about science, and to this day is often misunderstood. Data driven science can be both unethical and irrelevant to the targeted questions. Darwin’s value didn’t come from his data, but the predictions he could make with that data.

The ideal science is experiment driven. The experiments provide not only data, but and understanding of their context. Nobody serious disputes this. The problem is when separating a control is not possible. Either because of the economic cost, or the ethical cost. Darwin by his quality predictions has shown us not only the path of life, but a blueprint for more ethical science. The sure way to avoid public relations with murderous consequences in a lab coat. The worst part of human experimentation in the name of science?  it’s relative pointlessness compared to tested prediction?  It’s just a sad, avoidable, footnote.

Regardless if the impossible control is torturing humans, or copying planets, Darwin gave us a gift. The truth vetted in a trial by fire. The knowledge that data driven politics without prediction is an invitation to pointless suffering and disaster. Repeatable experiments are science. In it’s needed absence, quality, specific, predictions are science. Without prediction, data, even of the highest certainty and relevance, simply is not. It’s pre-science at best.  Darwin finalized prediction as the minimum requirement for the label of ‘science.’

Subconcious speed reading

books

Darwninan evolution leaves little room for debate. Genetic accidents come to dominate because of advantage.  Including people. Even the very empathy that makes you recoil from the potential horrors of the implications above.

Civgene indicates that the subconscious mind (specifically the conscience) is a risk manager.  Why?  With comparative intelligence, new risks are assessed more quickly by humans with a conscience than humans without (psychopaths).

The risk formula is programmed both by other people like our guardians, and by our own experience.  As our memories are recalled, a secondary map of emotions produces a new, involuntary, composite emotional state.  Sometimes the subsequent compound emotion is fear of a yet seen danger the rational mind could not deduct as quickly, hence the advantage.  Mandatory emotional recall is fast, as demonstrated by the laggard rationalization that follows it.  This is true only if the data is natural (self acquired or at least sincerely emparted) and good mental hygiene is practised.

Just like a caring parent can program a human child with well intentioned warnings, so can a group be controlled.  The ability for one human to program a society with a common identity is known as propaganda.  Grandfathered by Edward Bernays.  Fathered by Joseph Gobbels, mass programming of identities is a potential genocidal machine.  Turning peoples own conscience against them.  Rational minds enslaved to fabricated emotional risk warnings.

The civilized mind
Propaganda is a fabricated, subconscious, communication directed at societies, but it’s carriers originate naturally.  This is visible as secondary communication cues.  Intonation, secondary noises, linguistic lexicon shifts, lighting, temperature, smells, sounds, etc.  Any subtle cue that can be rationally remembered can have a compound emotion attached to it.  People are continuously programming each other.  Human civilization is a vast, distributed, subconscious risk, supercomputer.  Mainly throttled by the bandwidth of human interaction and attacks on it’s networks.

Karl Marx noticed this but did not understand what he is seeing.  In general I have found his observations to be outstanding, while his conclusions wither as a function of time.  Why did he get causality wrong?  No failing of his own.  He like his contemporaries simply did not understand that humanity was two distinct, separate behavioural sets.  They were simply unaware of psychopaths.

History repeated
His observations about late civilization stratification were correct.  The modern bourgeoisie have re-emerged in America and the western world.  In it’s natural form, the bourgeoisie as a class, emerges because of commonality in culture, specifically in subconscious ques.  As the psychopath population grows, the society increasingly devalues cooperation and rewards strict competition.  The bourgeoisie read the same books, attend the same operas, and go to the same parties.  The feedback loop tightens as quantifiable knowledge consumption accelerates.  The programming becomes less and less noticed, less frequently rationalized and ultimately goes completely unexamined.  Simply put the rational mind can’t keep up with the subconscious programming, and so it goes unchallenged.  The people who operate society, the bourgeoisie, eventually become completely psychopathic.

Now, in 2017 propaganda is more science than art.  Massive databases of up to the minute word associations betray our subconscious communication and the current state of shared risk.  Further the Internet has greatly increased the bandwidth for subconscious communication.  Sharing (comparatively) professionally produced videos as fast they can be consumed.  Entire libraries distributed in minutes.  Immersive video games increase the bandwidth even beyond what a carefully scripted stream of videos can aspire to.  Together they form a wall of customized emotionally calculated programming a physically present team couldn’t match.

Today the technical and financial elite are consuming same material. Racing to the treetop to be top ape in true psychopathic fashion.  Their subconscious always silently consuming faster than rational memory components.  Their rational minds can’t keep up.  Their subconscious is polluted with ease as big data guides big media.  The economic collapse, the human disaster, it’s happening again.  But this time it’s measured in days instead of decades.

But there is hope. The art, the music, the stories, the pop cultures of the past can save some of us.  If you are sceptical enough to seek and use them, and ultimately profit.

Remediation
The more bandwidth your media has, the more quickly your subconscious can be damaged.  Reading is the lowest bandwidth way to express complex information, so is the least dangerous.  It is difficult for subconcious programming to outrun the critical, rational mind with a newpaper article alone.  Listening is worse.  A podcast or radio program are more likely to reprogram you.  Video has many dimensions by which to perform the card tricks of propaganda.   Your rational mind following one path and your subconscious another.   And of course games both with their interactive 3d and reactive feedback could be weaponized at a level not yet imagined.

Slow the information down and test yourself.  Our metaminds are a database.  Care for it.

  1. Need to read something questionable?  Play loud familiar music while reading a suspect source to interrupt emotional data creation.  DOS your own emotional recall system.
  2. Do you think your emotions may have been contaminated?  Take time to meditate and focus on clearing them.  LIFO pop the stack.
  3. Noticed your feelings changed after consuming strange media?  Inventory the issues that are important to you and see if your feelings have inexplicably changed on them.  If you can’t understand the change erase it with self repetition.  Make sure to sleep on it before accepting the change.  Checksum data.  Erase corruption.  Perform a database integrity check.
  4. Exposed to something you don’t trust?  Follow questionable sources with next class up of familiar and trusted media.  Listened to a untrustworthy news story?   Then watch a favourite movie. Nightly news known to be disreputable? Don’t watch it.  But if you must, play a trusted favourite 3d video game to test and reset your own mind.  Ride a mental bicycle over your mind’s roads to see if they have been damaged or changed.  Perform a system wide antivirus scan on your metamind, as soon as you can.
  5. Want to consume something from a serial offender?  Wait.  Simply wait a few months to a few years and then consume it.  Wait until it is out of fashion.  Subconscious reprogramming is highly context sensitive.   Sure you’ll miss the water cooler talk but the older messages will be much more like noise to your subconscious.  Like running a new operating system, released after a virus (subconscious programming) is public knowledge and it’s exploits repaired or blocked.

Beat the propaganda.  The key is to slow down the face melting pace of rational learning and examine your feelings.  Remember more bandwidth means more damage.  No matter how smart you are, your conscience(if you have one) still absorbs propaganda faster than your rational mind can counter it.  Take some time to let what you consume sink in.  No matter the topic.

Reading has some risk. Listening is worse.  Watching still worse.  Games have the highest subconscious programmatic rate.  Take the time after consuming public media to practice good mental hygiene.

Reject the bourgeoisie and protect civilization.  Put your own mental hygiene ahead of accelerating competition.  The lasting standards are open source anyway, inherently an exercise in cooperation.  The currency of reputation is almost always worth more than short term victories.  Forget top branch, it’s a big forest.  It’s your mind.  Don’t loose control.

Note: For the record this page’s (probably rather confusing) computer analogies were white on white and were not meant to be subliminal, but instead hidden unless sought.  Alert me if the words subtly appear in your browser/copy.  TIA.

Edit: Added a fifth trick for keeping your subconscious clean and belonging to you.

Civgene can provide objective morality

 

 

Video explaining how you can derive objective morality from civgene.

You can use behaviours unique to empaths to derive objective morality from science itself.  Non-psychopathic behaviours are like atoms which in turn can be used to build rights, much like molecules.

More to come.

Edit 3/25:  Updated video.  Clearer and more concise edits with clips.

RAD confirms civgene amnesia prototyping

alone

RAD or Reactive Attachment Disorder fits the civgene Amnesia Prototyping model perfectly.

“defined as a condition where an individual has difficulty forming lasting relationships and lacks the ability to be genuinely affectionate toward others.  In addition, persons with RAD do not learn to trust others and do not appear to develop a conscience.”

What creates the conditions for RAD?

“This is believed to be caused by abuse or separation (physical or emotional) from one’s primary caregiver during the first three years of life”

The metamind model explains what is happening.  The non-psychopath’s brain is in a different mode at this age.  Instead of forming memories the metamind is forming types of memories or prototypes.  If a child is forced into risk assessment for survival (severe abuse) or has no emotional input whatsoever (Daniel Solomon ignored in an orphanage), prototypes are never created, and the metamind (the conscience/subconscious) can’t compare unlike things.  The metamind is a risk engine fed by emotional metadata.  With no data to output, no risk is modeled, and no conscience is displayed.

Of course the solution has already been found.  Attachment therapy.  What’s new is Civgene’s contribution to why it works.  A sufficient number of prototypes need to be formed so emotional structures can be attached to all memories, realizing the full biological EQ (and ultimately IQ) and forming a complete metamind.  The therapy works because such an extreme trust is formed (in the absence of risk) that during the therapy.  Hopefully in stretches of time that are long as possible. The key is no real consequences for the subjects actions, hence the conscience sends no risk signals.  In that environment the metamind may change modes to prototyping.  In that case it can write new emotional memories as prototypes doing the work that couldn’t occur at a young age.  Writing the prototypes that would have naturally formed in between 2 and 8 years old.

The bad news here is, there has been much false hope for curing actual psychopaths.  RAD victims may act like young psychopaths, but are not, nor ever will be psychopaths.  They are reverting to the pre-civilization gene jealousy conscience (acting like a psychopath.)  They have a metamind, but it never fully formed do to a lack of nurturing programming from guardians.

RAD untreated is a preventable, predictable, possibly lifelong, perpetuation of the first state of the metamind for humans born with one.  The states are undeveloped(including RAD), suppressed(transitory), metapsychopathy, and protopsychopathy.

References:

http://blog.asha.org/2013/07/11/kid-confidential-what-reactive-attachment-disorder-looks-like/

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/317/transcript

Terminology error – misuse of ‘recessive’

confusion

An error has become apparent throughout the civgene site and papers.  I have been incorrectly using the term recessive.  This stems from my high school level biological science background.  The mistake specifically was thinking that there were only two basic building blocks of genetic combinatorics.  A gross miscalculation.

In my defense I had no idea I would ever envision or peruse anything like civgene.  My rudimentary Mendelian generic understanding caused me to infer that any gene that was not dominant must be recessive. I was at the least, dated.  In fact had I been aware of the many types(and still growing) of genetic inheritance I would never have said it.  It is possible psychopathy is a combination of several genes and/or could be autosomal recessive, Autosomal dominant, (probably not X or Y linked) or a number of not commonly named patterns.  I just don’t know, but will pursue this knowledge.

My error was in not saying what I really meant, ‘Not Mendelian dominant.’ or ‘Not dominant’  This assertion is based on solid external science.  Psychopaths are officially considered to not be not curable.  This was the original tell for me that it is likely genetic.  Cases are distributed evenly between males and females.  Further, symptoms seem to begin from a very young age, one or two years old as childhood amnesia ends sooner, making postnatal epigenetics less likely.  Psychopaths can appear in families with no apparent history, but there does seem to be a higher likelihood of psychopaths being born to one or more psychopath parents.

I caught this error after some vague advice about misusing ‘recessive’ prompted me to look into the combinatorics of a civgene. I could not line up some estimates of psychopath growth with the numeracy of recessive genes.  During this process I learned that combinatorics vary wildly along with inheritance patterns.  Many alleles be part of a single gene or that genes with a single function can include large swaths of DNA.  Using combinatorics to prove genetic inheritance types without first knowing the genes involved can be difficult or impossible.  Lesson learned.

If you are a geneticist, you probably already realize this error does not effect the viability of civgene.  My thinking was correct even if my label was incorrect.  I apologise for any part in delaying recognition or visibility of civgene with this error.

The question remains of remediation.  Since the meaning was consistent, I can simply replace the word.  I have found 1 papers and 5 blog posts with the error.  I will correct ‘recessive’ with ‘not dominant’ ASAP and post the corrected links here as I find them.

Please if you find this to be further in error, please contact me with corrections ASAP.  Also if you find recessive in use, please contact me.  Thanks for you assistance.

Economic collapse can create unborn schizophrenia

wheat

“Likewise, adults that were prenatally exposed to famine conditions have also been reported to have significantly higher incidence of schizophrenia.”

Looks like support for another civgene theory. That schizophrenia is genetic resistance to manipulation by psychopaths. In this case epigeneticly triggered by starvation of an unborn’s mother.  Starvation, has a strong likelyhood it’s been caused by a collapsing economy.  Civgene predicts economic collapses are because the percentage of psychopaths in the economy has grown too large.

http://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/

citations from link.

  1. St Clair D., Xu M., Wang P., Yu Y., Fang Y., Zhang F., Zheng X., Gu N., Feng G., Sham P., and He L. Rates of Adult  Schizophrenia Following Prenatal Exposure to the Chinese Famine of 1959-1961.JAMA 294(5):557-562 (2005).
  2. van Os J, Selten JP. Prenatal exposure to maternal stress and subsequent schizophrenia. The May 1940 invasion of The Netherlands. Br J Psychiatry 172:324-6 (1998).

Interesting implications for supernatural faiths with fasting rituals. Are they systemically creating more schizophrenics?  How about dieting?  Is it statistically significant?