PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[PartSkeptic]

:shrug: Comparing the people who are currently burning down essential infrastructure and intimidating telecomms workers with the people who burnt and persecuted "witches" seems like a pretty good analogy to me. The witch burners, like the CT-ers, relied entirely on anecdotal evidence to justify their actions. They were a textbook case of what can happen when people give subjective feelings and beliefs more weight than objective evidence. One of history's earliest conspiracy theories, you could say.


Smoking is harmless in real life? As usual, you have missed the point entirely.

Let me try again.

You are assuming that your electrosmog hypothesis is like the link between smoking and cancer - a genuine health problem which is being deliberately covered up by vested interests. I am asking you to imagine, as a thought experiment, a scenario where the claimed link between smoking and cancer was not genuine, but was actually a baseless conspiracy theory. The aim of this thought experiment was to help you understand why the telecomms industry, and content providers like Youtube, might be responding as they are to your baseless conspiracy theory, not with any nefarious intent, but out of a genuine desire to minimise the damage being done by demonstrably erroneous beliefs. Or, to switch to the analogy you just quoted, they are like the women who desperately tried to stop the spread of the ridiculous rumours that they were witches before they ended up on that stake.

I got your point. But it was a bad one.

Who directed and controlled the witch burning? And propagated the need to blame people for evil. The rich and powerful of course. And what happened to people who tried to protest that it was wrong? Added to the list, they were.

What happens to people in power who act for their own greed and interests, could not care about others, and try to suppress the truth? Revolution. The Shah of Iran supported by the CIA is an example.

And the people in power use their power to spread doubt and dissent, and to capture the authorities. The State capture by President Zuma and his cronies in SA is a good example. It is ongoing.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What did the rich and powerful have to gain from witch hunts? The targets were often poor.
Most witch hunts were organized by religious holier than thou types who enabled people to end long term feuds with accusations of witchcraft, or to banish those that believed the same holy book in a slightly different way.

 

[Pixel42]

I got your point.

Evidently not, or you would not have responded in the spectacularly irrelevant way that you did.

But it was a bad one.

In what way?

Good or bad, I would still appreciate an answer. The question was, given the counterfactual situation described, "What do you think would be a reasonable response to this situation, PartSkeptic? Would the cigarette companies be justified in trying to get these books and documentaries withdrawn? Do the publishers of them bear any responsibility for the damage being done, and if so what steps could they reasonably take?"

Who directed and controlled the witch burning?

Religious crackpots who cherry picked anecdotes in order to justify their irrational beliefs to themselves, whilst ignoring the far more plentiful evidence that those poor women were completely harmless.

 

[Mojo]

How do you explain the fact that most people believe in the afterlife (a soul) and the existence of God and the supernatural?

People are inclined to believe stuff they want to be true, whether it’s the existence of gods, the efficacy of homeopathy or the harmfulness of mobile phone masts. All of these promise simple solutions to their problems. They don’t want to die, so they believe in an afterlife.

People are apes. They naturally live in social groups with a particular type of social structure, so are comfortable with the idea of a leader or supreme being. They are brought up by parents, or an extended family. The idea of an all-powerful eternal parent is comforting.

And this predisposition to belief has historically been useful to people who have found themselves at the top of these social structures, enabling them to consolidate their position by claiming divine backing and supporting religion. It’s a positive feedback loop.

Most of these concepts are common threads in most beliefs.

How do you explain the fact that they all disagree about the details? How does this happen if your infinite intelligence is capable of clearly communicating its ideas?

Charlatans and frauds have always used the beliefs to fleece people.

I’m sure you can find plenty of them willing to sell you products that they claim will shield you from the phone radiation.

That does not falsify the basics.

But neither does your argumentum ad populum confirm them.

How do you explain the great prophets?

Explain what? People setting themselves up, or being set up by others, as authorities? Happens all the time.

And their teachings?

The same way I explain Beethoven’s symphonies, Turner’s paintings or Damon Runyon’s short stories.

 

[Mojo]

Religious crackpots who cherry picked anecdotes in order to justify their irrational beliefs to themselves...

And, of course, to impose their authority through fear and intimidation. The same sort of political devices used by McCarthy in the 1950s.

 

[p0lka]

I have to apologize for not doing this test yet. For the past 7 days I have had to visit my wife's factory to do repairs and maintenance. This meant I had to drive past towers. I now realized how sensitive I am because I started feeling unwell most afternoons and evenings. It is pretty bad. Because I have fallen behind on my commitments I do not want to make myself more unwell by taking part in tests that I KNOW for certain will make me ill.

The past week has caused my blood pressure to sky-rocket. The electrosmog causes it. I am now using personal shielding when I go out our home. I have to cut way back on my calorie intake and do some serious walking three times a day.

It may take a week or more to get myself well and stable enough to do the tests. I have to admit a reluctance to deliberating harming myself.

Ah no need to apologize, your health comes first so deal with that first.
Do the test when you feel well enough to do it.

On a side note, how are you with hot sun out weather? do you burn or tan or anything else?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Ah no need to apologize, your health comes first so deal with that first.
Do the test when you feel well enough to do it.

On a side note, how are you with hot sun out weather? do you burn or tan or anything else?

Thanks for understanding. My blood pressure is down enough today that I do not have a headache. I feel better but it will take a few days. It is a combination of diet mostly (eating very little, some aspirin at night, a glass of red wine at night) and staying out of the radiation. I have a tendency to high blood pressure because I have to lose some weight. My blood pressure goes down to normal when I am at the Hydro where there is no radiation. Unfortunately my wife is too good a cook and she likes a big meal at night. I now have to say no.

I have a British light skin. I burnt easily after the winters in the USA. Just 15 minutes to get bright red. But if I took it slow, I could build up a nice tan and stay in the sun. My father was the same. He worked outdoors his whole life and was heavily tanned on his face and arms. Yet at 95 he had hardly any wrinkles. Why do you ask?

 

[PartSkeptic]

The Court of Appeal ruling was accurate but kind to the Judge (Laurenson). This judge retired two weeks after his ruling. Although considered an outstanding judge, his demeanor was that of a person entering dementia. How do you give costs to a lawyer who has stated he is an observer and not a participant?

A year after this case the New Zealand Legal Aid was taken to task for corruption on an extensive scale. The opposing lawyer (Cunningham) was funded by legal aid. His brother worked in Legal Aid. He was told by the Appeal Court to sit down and that they did not want to hear from him.

You can look up what the law reports said. This judgement was not in any of them.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA228/05
CA229/05
BETWEEN SANDRA JEANETTE HOTHAM
Appellant
AND ANNE CHERYL WEIR
Respondent
Hearing: 21 November 2006
Court: Chambers, Robertson and Ellen France JJ
Counsel: Appellant in Person
B M Cunningham for Respondent
Judgment: 4 December 2006 at 3 pm
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
CA228/05
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The High Court award of costs made on 9 August 2005 in favour of the
respondent is set aside.
D There will be no order as to costs in respect of the High Court or this
court.
CA229/05
E The appeal is dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA228/05
CA229/05
BETWEEN SANDRA JEANETTE HOTHAM
Appellant
AND ANNE CHERYL WEIR
Respondent
Hearing: 21 November 2006
Court: Chambers, Robertson and Ellen France JJ
Counsel: Appellant in Person
B M Cunningham for Respondent
Judgment: 4 December 2006 at 3 pm
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
CA228/05
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The High Court award of costs made on 9 August 2005 in favour of the
respondent is set aside.
D There will be no order as to costs in respect of the High Court or this
court.
CA229/05
E The appeal is dismissed.

...[23] Mr McCartney’s appearance was something of a surprise, as he had indicated in his pre-hearing memorandum that he would not be appearing at the hearing. He apparently advised the judge that he would not be taking part in the hearing, but said that he would remain as an observer. In these circumstances, the judge’s reference to Mr McCartney’s client’s “[opposing] the present application” is a little perplexing.
...[28] There was no possible justification for a costs order in favour of Mr McCartney’s clients. His clients had not filed a notice of opposition. Nor did Mr McCartney seek to take part in the proceeding before Laurenson J. A week later, in the Family Court, Judge Fleming recorded Mr McCartney’s clients’ stance as follows, at [3]:
If [Mr Gay’s s 49] application is made then both the estate represented by Ms Duffy QC and the other interested [parties] represented by Mr McCartney take the view that it would be appropriate that all the proceedings, including the substantive family protection proceedings, be transferred to the High Court.
[29] We are not, however, concerned with that particular costs order, since, as we have already stated, Mr McCartney’s clients have indicated that they do not intend to enforce it.
...[30] It seems equally clear that Mrs Weir should not get a costs order, given the stance she adopted in her notice of opposition, as set out at [6] above. It appears that at the hearing, Mr Gay’s stance wavered and became akin to opposition, although the passage from His Honour’s judgment we have quoted above at [24] would indicate that Mr Gay was still seeking “to have the matter transferred to [the High] Court”, albeit for a quite different reason from that which was motivating Mrs Hotham.
Later in the month, he advised the Family Court of his “unequivocal instructions” to apply to the High Court under s 49, which led to the transfer of the proceeding to that court, the very course Mrs Hotham and Mrs Weir had sought from the start, for their differing reasons.
[31] In these circumstances, Mrs Weir should not have been regarded as “the winner”. Mrs Hotham did not (immediately) get what she wanted, but nor did Mrs Weir. Had Laurenson J granted Mrs Hotham’s application, it would have been very unfair if Mrs Weir and Mr McCartney’s clients had been required to pay costs to Mrs Hotham, given their non-opposition to what was proposed. The converse must also apply.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Just musing. Nothing too serious.

Strange. The science has no explanation for the die-off of pandemics. Spanish Flu disappeared almost completely.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/karol-sikora-coronavirus-cases-not-rising-reopening

"Every pandemic, from the plagues in Venice, from the plague in Egypt way back in the times of Christ, we've seen them just peter out and we don't understand this petering out. Despite the very sophisticated computer mathematical models we've seen, we just don't know what is going to happen," he said.


And the scientists work with government to lie. Something so simple that I said, when I first heard someone say masks are not effective, that they are lying.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/wear...ronavirus-transmission-75-percent-study-shows

Researchers have found that wearing surgical masks can significantly reduce the rate of airborne COVID-19 transmission, according to a study released on Sunday.
The study, conducted by a team of scientists in Hong Kong, found the rate of non-contact transmission through respiratory droplets or airborne particles dropped by as much as 75 percent when masks were used.
“The findings implied to the world and the public is that the effectiveness of mask-wearing against the coronavirus pandemic is huge,” said Dr. Yuen Kwok-yung, a leading microbiologist from Hong Kong University who helped discover the SARS virus back in 2003.


The warning shots across the bow have been fired. I am off the opinion that the virus will mutate. How ironic it would be if the second and more deadly mutation came from Wuhan (you know - the 5G place ).

https://www.foxnews.com/health/coro...er-exhibiting-symptoms-differently-than-wuhan
Last month, a study from Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, found the virus had mutated into at least 30 different genetic mutations.
"Drug and vaccine development, while urgent, need to take the impact of these accumulating mutations, especially the founding mutations, into account to avoid potential pitfall," the study said.
The differences, however, could be because only the sickest patients were being treated when the virus first overwhelmed Wuhan and doctors can now pay more attention to the way symptoms manifest.

 

[abaddon]

Let us define the word and concept first. I will use these:

Dictionary: Adjective - Philosophy (of a property) arising as an effect of complex causes and not analyzable simply as the sum of their effects.

Wiki:
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own. These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
...Emergence is a notorious philosophical term of art.
...emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.)


Are we agreed so far?

No. I asked you what pattern the real world example ant would produce and you have no clue, do you.

That is a statement, not a question.

You don't even understand the plain correct definition you presented.

ETA: And it is not mere philosophy. I explicitly gave you a real world example because I knew well you would go there. That is why I specifically told you at the outset that it was a real world example. Not philosophy. Not a mind experiment, something you can physically demonstrate in real life.

And what did you do???? Predictable.

 

[abaddon]

I got your point. But it was a bad one.

Who directed and controlled the witch burning?

Religious people like you.

And propagated the need to blame people for evil.

Religious people like you.

The rich and powerful of course.

Calvin? St. Francis, They were all rich, right?

And what happened to people who tried to protest that it was wrong?

Calvin? St Francis? They got nowhere, right?

Added to the list, they were.

Only if one is motivated to keep a list of religious loons for some reason.

What happens to people in power who act for their own greed and interests, could not care about others, and try to suppress the truth? Revolution. The Shah of Iran supported by the CIA is an example.

The same CIA that was supporting the revolutionaries. Odd isn't it. Nothing can be understood simplistically.

And the people in power use their power to spread doubt and dissent, and to capture the authorities.

Think about what what you just wrote. Authorities ARE the people in power, so your claim is that the people in power set forth to capture themselves. That is absurd.

The State capture by President Zuma and his cronies in SA is a good example. It is ongoing.

Sures. You live in a banana republic with a crank at the helm. Good luck with that. But you cannot build a statistical case out of one instance.

And by now, I am becoming rather peeved with with your continuous evasion.

So how about you tell me what that ant will do.

 

[Pixel42]

Strange. The science has no explanation for the die-off of pandemics. Spanish Flu disappeared almost completely.

Scientists usually have several possible explanations for such things, they just don't have enough information to confidently pick one.

IIRC in the case of the Spanish flu the most likely explanation is thought to be that the virus mutated into less dangerous strains, which became more common than (and eventually entirely replaced) the deadlier ones because they were less likely to kill their hosts before being passed on. Evolution by natural selection, in other words.

 

[abaddon]

Evidently not, or you would not have responded in the spectacularly irrelevant way that you did.


In what way?

Good or bad, I would still appreciate an answer. The question was, given the counterfactual situation described, "What do you think would be a reasonable response to this situation, PartSkeptic? Would the cigarette companies be justified in trying to get these books and documentaries withdrawn? Do the publishers of them bear any responsibility for the damage being done, and if so what steps could they reasonably take?"


Religious crackpots who cherry picked anecdotes in order to justify their irrational beliefs to themselves, whilst ignoring the far more plentiful evidence that those poor women were completely harmless.

Ah. See, there is a predictable trajectory to such threads as these.

Eventually, when overwhelmed by evidence, the CT resorts to hurling insults.

We are at the start of that stage and the end of my patience.

 

[PartSkeptic]

OK, then.

You know what a chessboard is, right?

Imagine a very big chess chess board say 1 million by 1 million squares.

You can start with all black squares or all white squares or any variation in between of black and white squares.

Onto this grid you place a simple ant. This ant follows some very simple rules.

1. Move one square forward.
2. If the square it lands on is black, change it to white and turn to the left.
3. If the square it lands on is white, change it to black and turn to the right.
4. Repeat forever.

What pattern of black and white squares will the ant make, in your opinion?

This is, by the way, not any sort of thought experiment. One can actually do this in the real world.

Okay. Had to search for your post - the one you are referring to.

It is the Langton Ant.

Why do you you ask what pattern may result?

I do not see any mystery or gee-whiz in this. The rules that are set may or may not create patterns. Such patterns may only occur after a random sequence until the repetitive sequence is found.

Changing the rules slightly, or permitting a "mutation" of the rules at long intervals will result in a different behavior.

And this explains what? That there has to be start of the system and there has to be a set of rules. The more massive the number of parts or particles are, and the more complex the rules are, the more unpredictable the resulting outcome will be.

Since you want to apply this to the emergence of intelligence then I ask you why there was slightly more matter than antimatter? If they were the same then what would "emerge" (another word for "change into") would be a vast sea of energy and no matter/antimatter.

Who or what set the initial conditions and the rules?

 

[abaddon]

Okay. Had to search for your post - the one you are referring to.

It is the Langton Ant.

Why do you you ask what pattern may result?

I do not see any mystery or gee-whiz in this. The rules that are set may or may not create patterns. Such patterns may only occur after a random sequence until the repetitive sequence is found.

Changing the rules slightly, or permitting a "mutation" of the rules at long intervals will result in a different behavior.

And this explains what? That there has to be start of the system and there has to be a set of rules. The more massive the number of parts or particles are, and the more complex the rules are, the more unpredictable the resulting outcome will be.

Since you want to apply this to the emergence of intelligence then I ask you why there was slightly more matter than antimatter? If they were the same then what would "emerge" (another word for "change into") would be a vast sea of energy and no matter/antimatter.

Who or what set the initial conditions and the rules?

And now we all know for certain that you do not comprehend emergence.

I specifically asked you what pattern would the ant form. And you equally specifically refused to answer.

So again I ask what pattern will the ant infallibly form. The initial conditions are irrelevant because they have NO effect on the outcome.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Evidently not, or you would not have responded in the spectacularly irrelevant way that you did.


In what way?

Good or bad, I would still appreciate an answer. The question was, given the counterfactual situation described, "What do you think would be a reasonable response to this situation, PartSkeptic? Would the cigarette companies be justified in trying to get these books and documentaries withdrawn? Do the publishers of them bear any responsibility for the damage being done, and if so what steps could they reasonably take?"

(snip).

My answer is that the cigarette companies would NOT be justified in trying to get these books and documentaries withdrawn. It is censorship by a corporate that has a profit agenda.

I am not against certain types of speech. The most obvious is hate speech, But the publications you describe are not hate speech. They are expressions of concern saying that there are grounds for concern.

You say "There are some studies which show that tissue exposed to levels of nicotine many times greater than those in cigarette smoke can become damaged, but other studies show no such damage, so even this is questionable."

The cigarette companies have enough money that they could mount a decent information campaign to address the concerns. They clearly did not. This is the right way to go. It is called openness and transparency. What you minimize is that the "dangerous" articles have an argument that DOES link nicotine to harm. That argument is not being made an open and public issue.

Clearly some people are suffering harm and that harm is not being explained.
If people then look for answers and find these "hidden" studies, AND find that the cigarette companies are trying to suppress them, do you not think that people will get suspicious about the reasons for the suppression.

And people will not mobilize and burn things down unless there is a large amount of harm occurring in the community. The Corporates have taken a "war room" stance historically and there are many examples of corporate disinformation using science. They also attack and vilify their opponents. There is no debate and people feel powerless. A tipping point gets reached.

I have tried to focus on your example but clearly you and I know that it is actually about cell towers.

 

[PartSkeptic]

And now we all know for certain that you do not comprehend emergence.

I specifically asked you what pattern would the ant form. And you equally specifically refused to answer.

So again I ask what pattern will the ant infallibly form. The initial conditions are irrelevant because they have NO effect on the outcome.

Altered Initial condition 1)
The grid consists of a chess board modified by adding a black square to the right of each original black square moving the others to the right. Or any other non-chess-board pattern.

Onto this grid you place a simple ant. This ant follows some very simple rules.

1. Move one square forward.
2. If the square it lands on is black, change it to white and turn to the left.
3. If the square it lands on is white, change it to black and turn to the right.
4. Repeat forever.

What pattern of black and white squares will the ant make, in your opinion?

Altered Initial condition 2)
The grid consists of a regular chess board pattern.

Onto this grid you place a simple ant. This ant follows some very simple rules.

1. Move one square forward.
2. If the square it lands on is black, change it to white and turn to the left.
3. If the square it lands on is white, change it to black and turn to the right.
3a. Every tenth move must be a forward move using the next digit in the number Pi (or "e") for the number of forward steps.
4. Repeat forever.

What pattern of black and white squares will the ant make, in your opinion?

Apparently the exact same pattern?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Scientists usually have several possible explanations for such things, they just don't have enough information to confidently pick one.

IIRC in the case of the Spanish flu the most likely explanation is thought to be that the virus mutated into less dangerous strains, which became more common than (and eventually entirely replaced) the deadlier ones because they were less likely to kill their hosts before being passed on. Evolution by natural selection, in other words.

If I remember correctly, the Spanish Flu was an exception to the "mutate to less deadly strain and become seasonal". They found a frozen body and were able sequence the genes. It had no resemblance to other strains of flu that followed. This is despite the fact that the third mutated wave was less virulent.

 

[Pixel42]

My answer is that the cigarette companies would NOT be justified in trying to get these books and documentaries withdrawn. It is censorship by a corporate that has a profit agenda.

So you're happy for the harm that is being caused by the false information that's being promulgated to continue? You think people should be allowed to wrongly shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre? They should be allowed to falsely accuse harmless old women of casting spells to poison their crops, and happily watch as they are burnt at the stake?

That's certainly a view that a few people hold, but it's an extreme one. It's the view that the right to freedom of speech is so important that it trumps all other rights, including the right of law-abiding people to live their lives free from unwarranted harassment and attack.

I am not against certain types of speech. The most obvious is hate speech, But the publications you describe are not hate speech. They are expressions of concern saying that there are grounds for concern.

But the available evidence does not justify that concern. Not by a long shot.

You say "There are some studies which show that tissue exposed to levels of nicotine many times greater than those in cigarette smoke can become damaged, but other studies show no such damage, so even this is questionable."

The cigarette companies have enough money that they could mount a decent information campaign to address the concerns. They clearly did not. This is the right way to go. It is called openness and transparency. What you minimize is that the "dangerous" articles have an argument that DOES link nicotine to harm. That argument is not being made an open and public issue.

The scientific studies are published and are freely available for anyone to read, write and speculate about. What we are discussing is whether people are entitled to jump to, and publish, conclusions which those studies do not come close to justifying.

Clearly some people are suffering harm and that harm is not being explained.

No, that is not clear.

If people then look for answers and find these "hidden" studies, AND find that the cigarette companies are trying to suppress them, do you not think that people will get suspicious about the reasons for the suppression.

The studies are not hidden and the cigarette companies are not trying to suppress them. Their concern is books and documentaries that take advantage of these ambiguous studies to falsely link smoking to all sorts of illnesses including a pandemic. Remember in my analogy, smoking is in fact completely harmless. Like those old women were.

And people will not mobilize and burn things down unless there is a large amount of harm occurring in the community.

If there a large amount of perceived harm. If that harm is imagined, or if the cause being blamed is the wrong one, the people who are falsely claiming that there is objective evidence otherwise are responsible for the damage being done.

The Corporates have taken a "war room" stance historically and there are many examples of corporate disinformation using science. They also attack and vilify their opponents. There is no debate and people feel powerless. A tipping point gets reached.

Your accusation of "corporate disinformation using science" in this case is not warranted by the available evidence. The fact that something has happened in the past does not mean you can just assume it's happening now.

I have tried to focus on your example but clearly you and I know that it is actually about cell towers.

I and everyone else understood that from the start. I'm glad you have finally caught on.

 

[Pixel42]

If I remember correctly, the Spanish Flu was an exception to the "mutate to less deadly strain and become seasonal". They found a frozen body and were able sequence the genes. It had no resemblance to other strains of flu that followed. This is despite the fact that the third mutated wave was less virulent.

I remember the sequencing and how it enabled the origin to be determined, but I can find no mention of a lack of resemblance to later strains. Link?

The wiki article says

In June 2010, a team at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine reported the 2009 flu pandemic vaccine provided some cross-protection against the 1918 flu pandemic strain.[156]

which suggests the opposite.