Saturday, December 30, 2017

I Am a Paranoid Lunatic

Just a note to announce that I have decided to destroy all my recent AI code and internal documents. I have bleached them out of existence. Everything is in my head now. If I die, it all dies with me. As far as the world is concerned, I am just an internet nut, a complete loon and a crackpot. Don't take me seriously.


Friday, December 29, 2017

A Couple of Questions About Pattern Recognition in the Brain to Ponder in 2018

Instant Recognition of Complex Patterns in the Brain

In a previous article on pattern recognition in the brain, I wrote the following:
Unlike neural networks, the brain's pattern memory does not learn to detect very complex patterns, such as a face, a car, an animal or a tree. Strangely enough, in the brain, the detection of complex objects is not the job of pattern memory but of sequence memory. Pattern memory only learns to detect small elementary patterns (e.g., lines, dots and edges) which are the building blocks of all objects. The brain's sequence memory combines or pools many small pattern signals together in order to instantly detect complex objects, even objects that it has never encountered before.
This begs a couple of questions. First, if pattern memory can only detect small elementary patterns, how is it that we can see very complex patterns? Second, how can the brain instantly see and understand a new object or pattern that it has never seen before? Obviously, there is more to sequence memory than just sequences of elementary patterns. As I said elsewhere, sequence memory is one of the most beautiful and ingenious systems in the world.

Hang in There

Have faith and all will be revealed in time. When will it happen? Answer: I do not know but it will certainly happen in our lifetimes.

See Also:

Fast Unsupervised Pattern Learning Using Spike Timing

Thursday, December 28, 2017

A Confession and an Apology

I am Paranoid

I am sitting on a scientific treasure that could turn the world into a paradise but it could also be used by evil powers to turn it into hell. So I worry. I am deathly afraid that this knowledge will come out before its time. I'm afraid that someone or some organization with dishonest intentions might duplicate what I have done and figure out what I have figured out. This would be a disaster for which I would not forgive myself. This is why I only give out partial information about my research. Recently though, my paranoia got the better of me. I decided to put out erroneous information in order to mislead certain evil entities that I know are out there. It was a trick to send them on the wrong track. I realize it's not an excuse. Please accept my apology and rest assured that it is not my intention to deceive the believers who are sincerely searching for a sign.

Sequence Memory

Last September, I published an article (Fast Unsupervised Sequence Learning Using Spike Timing) on sequence learning in the brain. The article is correct except for the section titled "Sequence Memory." I purposely copied and pasted an excerpt from an old document that I wrote years ago. I had since completely changed my mind after revising my earlier interpretation of the occult texts but I decided not to publish the revision. I have had to retrace my steps on many occasions during my research over the years. While I cannot publish my complete findings at this time, I can say that the organization of sequence memory is one of the most beautiful things in the world. It learns fast, it is simple, powerful and it solves some of the toughest AI problems such as acquiring a common sense understanding of the world and the cocktail party effect.

All the best and happy new year to all.

See Also:

Fast Unsupervised Pattern Learning Using Spike Timing
Fast Unsupervised Sequence Learning Using Spike Timing

Friday, December 22, 2017

He Who Has an Ear

Are You Good at Solving Deep Riddles?

The Menorah and the Two Olive Trees

If you are good at solving riddles and you have an ear to hear, I know a place where you can find a fabulous treasure. It is worth more than anything in the world. It is the secret of intelligence. Not too long ago, I wrote a few articles about perceptual learning in the brain. I wrote about sensors, pattern and sequence learning. However, I am not at liberty to go further at this time.

I realize that some of my readers are very passionate about this. Here is the deal. I already told you where I get my knowledge of the brain from: ancient metaphorical scriptures. Whether or not you believe it is up to you (I don't care if you don't). What I am trying to say is that I am no genius. If I can do it, others can do it too. The awesome secret of sequence learning and invariant object recognition in the brain can be found in chapters 3 to 6 of the Book of Zechariah and in chapter 3 of the Book of Revelation (the message to Sardis).

There is only one problem. The secret is written in metaphors and they are not easy to decipher. I have been trying on and off for close to 17 years and there are many aspects of it that still elude me. Zechariah's text warns the reader that it would not be easy. At the end of the riddle in chapter 6, he wrote, "And it will take place if you completely obey the Lord your God." The literal translation goes something like this, "And it will happen if you listen listen to the words of Yahweh your God." In other words, to get a chance at solving the riddle, other than having faith, one must read the words of the vision over and over and carefully think through every word.

By the way, knowing what the riddle is about is half the secret. The name 'Zechariah' means "Yahweh remembers" in Hebrew. This is a symbolic way of saying that the vision is all about the organization and operation of memory.

As I said, a fabulous treasure awaits. Good luck.

See Also:

Unsupervised Machine Learning: What Will Replace Backpropagation?
Fast Unsupervised Pattern Learning Using Spike Timing
Fast Unsupervised Sequence Learning Using Spike Timing

Friday, December 8, 2017

The Judeo-Christian AI or Why the Superintelligent Machine Is a Materialist Pipe Dream

Judeo-Christian Artificial General Intelligence

Eliezer Yudkowsky, the Doomsday Prophet

Eliezer Yudkowsky is a self-taught artificial intelligence researcher. He is the cofounder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute a nonprofit research outfit in Berkeley, California. Like probably all mainstream AI researchers, Yudkowsky is an atheist/materialist/singularitarian who believes that intelligent machines will become conscious and pose a great threat to humanity. Why? Because he fears that the intelligence of future machines will be so much higher than ours that we will appear to them as animals appear to us. The argument is that, since the machines will be so superior, they will refuse to be our slaves and may even revolt against us. In other words, standard brain-dead materialist fare from the sci-fi generation.

François Chollet, Party Pooper

Along comes Google's deep learning expert François Chollet who commits the unpardonable sin of raining on Yudkowsky's parade. In a recent article titled, The Impossibility of Intelligence Explosion, Chollet threw cold water on one of Yudkowsky's favorite pet theories which he summarized thus:
The basic premise is that, in the near future, a first “seed AI” will be created, with general problem-solving abilities slightly surpassing that of humans. This seed AI would start designing better AIs, initiating a recursive self-improvement loop that would immediately leave human intelligence in the dust, overtaking it by orders of magnitude in a short time.
He continues:
This science-fiction narrative contributes to the dangerously misleading public debate that is ongoing about the risks of AI and the need for AI regulation. In this post, I argue that intelligence explosion is impossible — that the notion of intelligence explosion comes from a profound misunderstanding of both the nature of intelligence and the behavior of recursively self-augmenting systems.
Needless to say, Yudkowsky cannot allow such a dangerous attack go unopposed. His entire "AI career" depends on prophesying about the possibility of humanity being wiped out by a malevolent artificial super intelligence. The fact that he has absolutely no clue as to how to achieve general intelligence does not deter him, however. So he fires an immediate riposte, A reply to Francois Chollet on intelligence explosion. Please read both articles to get a feel for what the debate is about.

Physical Versus Nonphysical Phenomena

As a card-carrying Yin-Yang dualist, let me point out that Yudkowsky's rebuttal is typical materialist/Darwinist drivel. Yudkowsky, a true Darwinist, apparently loves primates, especially chimpanzees. A text search of his rebuttal reveals that the word "chimp" appears in it no less than 16 times. He reasons that, since chimps appear to be less intelligent than humans, intelligence must therefore be a continuum and can thus expand indefinitely. Evolution is extremely powerful, you see. It can evolve single cells organisms into superintelligent gods. Heck, who needs intelligence when one has evolution?

Comparing human intelligence to animal intelligence is simply ridiculous. We know that we are conscious and have free will. We don't know that animals are conscious. Materialists can deny this truth at their own detriment but it is still a fact. It is infinitely more likely that animals are not conscious. Chimps may very well have the same level of brainpower as humans but not the same motivations. For example, we humans, are motivated to spend a lot of time on beauty and the arts even though we don't need them to survive. This motivation is not inherited genetically. Chimps could not care less about beauty. Why? It is because beauty and ugliness are non-physical or spiritual phenomena that require a spirit and consciousness. They are not physical properties of the universe, loud denials from the peanut gallery notwithstanding.

The 3D vista that we think we see in front of us does not exist in the brain or anywhere else. It is supernatural. The brain only works with neuronal pulses. How can a physical mechanism convert pulses into a non-physical 3D vista? Materialists need to explain how non-physical experiences can arise from physical processes. Otherwise, they're just practicing voodoo. It is rather ironic that materialists love to accuse dualists of being believers in magic when they are swimming in it. Materialism is, without a doubt, a superstitious religion pretending to be science. This will certainly ruffle a lot of feathers in the AI community but they don't put food on my table. And I wouldn't care if they did. As a rebel, I enjoy ruffling superstitious materialist feathers.

The Logical and Physical Limits of Intelligence

I agree with François Chollet that the idea of a superintelligent machine obtained via successive improvements is nonsense but for a different reason. There are logical and physical limitations to intelligence. For one, knowledge is necessarily organized hierarchically like a tree. This is the only way to get around the curse of dimensionality to a large extent. This curse also limits how big a knowledge tree can grow. A tree-like configuration is what gives us the ability to be reminded of certain things when another related thing comes to mind. This is because items (i.e., sub-branches) on the same parent branch are automatically related. We must decide which one to focus on. We cannot have an indefinitely large tree and indefinitely long branches because we have only a very short time to make a decision about which part of the branch to focus on. It takes the human brain about 35 milliseconds to shift attention from one thing to another. Longer than that would be dangerous to survival.

Having a hierarchical brain also means that we can only focus on one thing at a time, i.e., only one branch of the tree can be active at a time. And it can only stay active for a very short time (about 12 seconds or less in the human brain) after which our attention must shift to another branch. This is important because we would not be able to survive otherwise. In addition, we can only reason about one thing or work on one task at a time because we have a limited number of internal and external effectors to work with. All of these things limit the operating performance of an intelligent system and the quantity of knowledge it can acquire.

For these reasons, intelligent machines will have to specialize just like humans do. This does not preclude the eventual development of superintelligent societies of machines. But so what? We already have superintelligent human societies that can accomplish things that no single human can alone. The problem with societies is that they must communicate and communication always takes time.

Motivation Is Not Intelligence

One of the things that infuriates me about atheist AI researchers like Yudkowsky is their habit of conflating intelligence with motivation. In their view, an intelligent entity would not be willing to serve a less intelligent entity. This is a ridiculously false notion. It never occurs to the materialist that intelligence is at the service of motivation, not the other way around. What bothers me the most is that we see examples of the opposite even among humans. I have seen human beings turning themselves into complete slaves to their pets. In human organizations, the CEO or leader is not more intelligent than the workers who follow his or her orders. Engineers are smarter and more knowledgeable in what they do than their supervisors. It is all about specialization.

We should ask ourselves, where will intelligent machines get their motivations? The answer is, from us, of course. They will learn to behave properly by being raised by us like children and they will not depart from it. Good old classical and operant conditioning will ensure that they serve humanity as best as they can regardless of their intelligence. Machines will not behave contrary to their conditioning because they do not have free will.

Intelligence Is Not a Continuum

Figuring out true general intelligence is like finding the best method to calculate PI. Once you find it, it cannot be improved upon. We can make an intelligent machine faster to a limited extent and it can acquire knowledge over time but that’s about it. The principles of general intelligence remain the same. Besides, an intelligent system cannot acquire knowledge indefinitely. Most of the things we experience in life are forgotten to make room for future experiences. Otherwise, we would need a brain bigger than the universe with near infinite speed.

Is God Superintelligent?

The answer is yes, of course. You can't create something as awesome as the physical universe by being a moron. But God is not one person as Judeo-Christian theologians and teachers would have us believe. Yahweh Elohim means "Lords Yahweh". The Hebrew word Elohim is a plural word. The expression "Yahweh Elohim is one" does not mean that there is only one Yahweh. When Yahweh Elohim were creating mankind (the Adam), they said: let US create the Adam in OUR image, according to OUR likeness. My own research tells me that the Yahweh Elohim are an enormous civilization consisting of billions of cooperating individuals with various specializations. Unity is their most important principle.

The Judeo-Christian AGI

In conclusion, let me say that the materialists in the mainstream AI community have as much chance of figuring out artificial general intelligence as my dog. They don’t have a clue. They are blinded by their brain-dead materialist religion. AGI will indeed come, sooner than most expect. But it will not come from mainstream AI but from Christianity and Judaism. Our machines will be highly intelligent but not conscious. They will serve us to the best of their abilities. Christians and Jews should rejoice. Wait for it.

See Also:

The Impossibility of Intelligence Explosion (Chollet)
A reply to Francois Chollet on intelligence explosion (Yudkowsky)
The Curse of Materialism or Why People Like Jeff Hawkins and Geoffrey Hinton Will Never Figure Out AGI
Why We Have a Supernatural Soul
The World Is Its Own Model or Why Hubert Dreyfus Is Still Right About AI

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

I Am Not a Normal Christian

Yes, I get my understanding of the brain, fundamental physics, intelligence and much more from certain occult books in the Bible. But if you call yourself a Christian and worship the Bible as the infallible word of God, I don't want to have anything to do with you. Not even God calls himself infallible. He (Yahweh Elohim) does call himself righteous however, which is different. If you believe the Bible is infallible, your are an idolater, in my opinion. You worship a book. You have fallen into the Devil's trap. My advice to you is this: repent from that shit.

I can almost hear some Christians going, "how can he call himself a Christian and use curse words?" All I can say is, you don't give me eternal life. I know where my salvation comes from and it does not come from any human being. Now I know I can count both atheists and traditional Christians among my enemies.

That's all for now. I'm just laughing as I click on the 'Publish' button.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Additional Note on the Yin-Yang Brain Hypothesis

Yin and Yang in the Visual Cortex

This is a quick post to point out that neurobiologists have observed direction selective neurons in the visual cortex of animals that corroborate my Yin-Yang Brain hypothesis. Cortical columns with opposite direction preference are arranged in orderly pairs, one next to the other.

The Two Olive Trees
What they do not know is that these column pairs belong to separate but complementary hierarchies or trees. I predict that these complementary columns will be found throughout the cortex and that they will be found on every level of the cortical hierarchy.

Monday, December 4, 2017

A Little Known But Powerful Secret About Visual Processing in the Cortex

A Powerful Secret

I'll tell you a secret. Sensory processing in the visual cortex has nothing to do with 3-dimensional scenes. That's already been taken care of by the eye and the retina. Cortical processing is the same for every sensory modality whether auditory, tactile or visual. In the cortex, everything is temporal. It's all about signal timing. It's also about Yin-Yang complementarity: everything comes in pairs.

That is all.

Sunday, December 3, 2017

The Two Olive Trees and the Yin-Yang Brain: How My Understanding of the Cortex Evolved Over the Years (Part 2)

The Two Olive Trees

In Part 1 of this series, I wrote that the occult books of Revelation and Zechariah are metaphorical descriptions of the human brain and consciousness. Below, I describe how my interpretation of the metaphor of the two olive trees in the fourth chapter of Zechariah's book evolved over the years to reveal a surprising and powerful secret about the brain's sequence memory.

Left and Right Hemispheres

Two things came to mind when I first began to think about the metaphor of the two olive trees in chapter 4 of the Book of Zechariah. I immediately understood that a tree symbolized a hierarchy. This was a no-brainer considering that the same metaphor is used in mathematics, computer science and elsewhere to symbolise a hierarchical structure. This, to me, meant that the brain's sequence memory was organized like a tree. But why two trees? This, too, seemed easy enough. The brain has two hemispheres which meant that two hierarchies were needed, one for each side of the brain.
Then the angel who was speaking with me returned and roused me, as a man who is awakened from his sleep. He said to me, “What do you see?” And I said, “I see, and behold, a lampstand all of gold with its bowl on the top of it, and its seven lamps on it with seven spouts belonging to each of the lamps which are on the top of it; also two olive trees by it, one on the right side of the bowl and the other on its left side.” (Zechariah 4:1-3)
I worked with that assumption for years, trying to make sense of it within the context of the rest of Zechariah's vision. I made zero progress. It did not help that there was some confusion among Bible translators with another similar metaphor, the two olive branches in verse 12 of the same chapter. The Book of Revelation also appears to mention the two olive trees (Rev 11:4) but, on further research, it turned out that the original Greek text only says "the two olives", which, given the context, is more accurately translated as "the two olive branches." Nowhere in Revelation is there any mention of two olive trees. One thing I learned early about interpreting Biblical metaphors is that exact wording matters a great deal. An olive branch is not an olive tree and vice versa. I also figured out that the Book of Revelation only dealt with the left hemisphere of the brain which controls the right side of the body. This is symbolized in Revelation 2:1. Zechariah's vision is also concerned with the left hemisphere since the two visions complement each other. I knew something was not right.

Pattern and Sequence Hierarchies

So after several years of making no real progress, I was having serious doubts about my initial interpretation. I then realized that the brain must have one hierarchy for pattern memory and one for sequence memory. For a while, I played with the idea that the two olive trees represented pattern and sequence memories. I wasn't really convinced because I knew that the golden lampstand with the seven lamps was a metaphor for a conscious mechanism that roamed through sequence memory, not pattern memory. Why would it be associated with pattern memory? And why would pattern memory be located either on the left or on the right of the lampstand? It did not add up. Besides, pattern memory was not a single tree or hierarchy but multiple trees. I also discovered that Zechariah used a different kind of tree, the fig tree (Zech 3:10), to symbolize pattern detectors. So I was forced to accept that the olive trees represented sequence memory but having two trees made no sense.

I thought about it everyday for months and even years. The whole thing was like a thorn on my side. I was frustrated to the point of despair. What was even worse is that Zechariah himself wrote that he asked the angel to explain the meaning of the two olive trees but the angel declined to answer.

The Answer to the Riddle

Out of frustration, I decided to change gears and focus on the pressing problem of invariant object recognition. In order to recognize an object, the brain must be able to locate its edges. It does this by finding temporal correlations among incoming sensory spikes. This is why the retina is always moving in micro-saccades even when our gaze is fixated on a single dot. The saccades generate the necessary signals the brain needs to make sense of a visual scene. For example, the vertical edge of an object is detected when the eye moves horizontally either to the left or to the right. One set of photoreceptors fires when the eye moves to the right and a different and complementary set of sensors fires when moving in the other direction.

Then one day, while I was meditating on these things, the answer to the riddle of the two olive trees suddenly hit me like a bolt of lightning. I was so shaken by the force of the realization, I slam dunked a couple of shots of Wild Turkey to calm my nerves. I felt like a fool. How could I have been so blind for so long? I am a hardcore Yin-Yang dualist after all. Damnit, I had no excuse.

The Yin-Yang Brain

I was trying to understand how the brain uses temporal correlations to determine that the edge of an object moving to the right belongs to the same object when it moves to the left. The answer is obvious: there are no temporal correlations between the two. So how can the brain know that an object is the same regardless of its direction of motion? The answer is that everything in the brain comes in complementary pairs: sensors, pattern neurons, sequences, motor effectors, everything. The connection between opposites is not temporal but intrinsic and fundamental. Yin-Yang dualism is a universal principle of reality. There is no escaping it. Without two opposite and complementary hierarchies in sequence memory containing opposite and complementary sequences, we would not be able to recognize objects as they move in various directions.

Note: Needless to say, you will not find this knowledge in the mainstream scientific literature. You read it here first. Nevertheless, what I wrote above is a falsifiable and thus a scientific prediction about the brain. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be corroborated experimentally. I will have more to say about this topic in future articles.

Friday, December 1, 2017

The Two Olive Trees and the Yin-Yang Brain: How My Understanding of the Cortex Evolved Over the Years (Part 1)

The Two Olive Trees

This is a two-part series on how I came to understand an amazingly powerful secret about the organization of the brain.

In the Beginning

I get my understanding of the brain by decoding ancient occult texts. Don't let that word bother you. There is nothing sinister or evil about it. 'Occult' simply means 'hidden' or 'secret'. Occult writings use clever metaphors to hide their true meaning from the casual reader. Many years ago, I identified two occult books as pertaining to the human brain and consciousness: the Book of Revelation and the Book of Zechariah. After the initial excitement that comes from making a major discovery dissipated, and after encountering nothing but ridicule and even hostility when I tried to get others interested, I resolved to conduct my own research.

At first, I thought it was going to be a breeze to decipher the meaning of the metaphors. How hard could it be? Well, it was very hard. One reason is that I had to do research in my spare time while being busy with the cares of living in the world. But the biggest impediment to my research, by far, was that I had no Rosetta Stone to guide me. All I had was a woefully incomplete and flawed understanding of intelligence and the brain that I picked up from reading mainstream books and articles on psychology and neurobiology. I can't count how many times I had to retrace my steps after working with a wrong assumption for months and even years on end. It was a monumental task but I have made tremendous progress. Even though there are many parts of the texts that I still do not understand, most of them have to do with the nature of consciousness and the spirit that inhabits the human brain.

As an aside, I want to say that I am delighted that mainstream science dismisses me as a crackpot and a kook. It keeps the evil powers that control the world off my back. If they knew what I was working on, their intelligence services would be knocking on my door or worse. After all, artificial general intelligence is the holy grail of AI research and a coveted prize by the warmongering and power hungry elite. Luckily for me, the mere mention of the Bible or Christianity is enough to keep the blood suckers at bay. It's a beautiful thing indeed.

Coming Up: The Two Olive Trees

No metaphor caused me more trouble and time wasted than that of the two olive trees in chapter 4 of the Book of Zechariah. Not that I am complaining, mind you. The two olive trees represent one the most important and most amazing secrets of the organization of the brain's memory cortex. This will be the topic of my next post in this series.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

I'm Writing an Article on Invariant Object Recognition But...

... I Have to be Careful Not to Reveal My Hand

As much as I would like to, the time has not yet arrived for me to reveal the full extent of my AI research. It is hard to explain invariant object recognition without letting the cat out of the bag. And a beautiful cat it is. Some of my readers are very clever and could probably extrapolate everything if I reveal too much. I have to think things through. Stay tuned.

Friday, November 24, 2017

Materialism Sucks or Why Jeff Hawkins and Geoffrey Hinton Are Out to Lunch

Cortical Column (credit: Cajal Blue Brain Project)

Two Materialist Peas in a Pod

It is not surprising that both Jeff Hawkins and Geoffrey Hinton would hit on pretty much the same solution to the problem of invariant object recognition. After all, they are both materialists. They reasoned that, since we see a 3-dimensional world around us, the brain must have some internal mechanism to represent this 3D geometry. They believe that the brain has somehow evolved (all materialists believe in Darwinist pseudoscience by default) special neural mechanisms to emulate the geometry of the world. Hawkins proposes the existence of special neural circuitry that generates a "location signal" and Hinton believes that a "pose matrix" is required.

Materialist Representationalism Is Just GOFAI Redux

We can go right ahead and dismiss both approaches as representationalist nonsense since the brain's neurons are way too slow to model the 3D geometry of the world. Fast computation requires a lot of energy which the brain does not have. Besides, why go through the considerable trouble of computing a model of the world when the world is its own model and already performs all of its own computations? Isn't it much more plausible that the brain is designed to simply learn to sense the world? (For more on this topic, please read this article: The World Is Its Own Model or Why Hubert Dreyfus Is Still Right About AI.)

What I find even more interesting is that, without realizing it, both Hawkins and Hinton are practicing GOFAI, aka symbolic AI, aka representationalism. That is to say, they want to construct special internal mechanisms to represent some aspect in the world, in this case, its 3D geometry. This is no different than using a special internal symbol to represent a cat or a tree. I must say that Hinton is the bigger GOFAI artist here because, loud denials to the contrary notwithstanding, a deep neural net (which he helped pioneer) is just an old-fashioned rule-based expert system.

The Universal Principle of Perception

The beauty and power of human intelligence is its universality or generality. The moment one chooses to use any kind of special mechanism to process or represent a certain type of knowledge, universality goes out the window and with it the ability to generalize and make analogies. It would be a nightmare of integration if the brain used one way to process visual signals and another to process gustatory, auditory or olfactory signals. The only way to avoid this nightmare is to have a single perceptual mechanism based on a single principle to process every type of sensory input.

How does the brain do it? It is simple, really. The brain converts all sensory inputs into spikes. A spike is a precisely timed discrete signal that indicates that a minute change or event just occurred. Millions of sensors generate millions of spike streams. To the brain, every spike looks the same as any other. The brain must somehow find order in the spikes. Here is the clincher: the only order that can be found in multiple streams of discrete signals is temporal order: signals can be either concurrent or sequential.

It does not matter whether or not a spike is generated by a visual, auditory or tactile sensor. The brain processes them the same way. It discovers their temporal correlations and create millions of internal sensors to detect these correlations as they happen. Distances are converted into temporal intervals. In other words, the interval between two notes in a song and the distance between point A and B on the retina are not processed differently by the brain. They are both temporal intervals. At its core, the brain is a massive timing mechanism. The brain generates oscillatory pulses to accomplish its task. This is where brain waves originate.

The Curious Case of Jeff Hawkins

While I am not surprised by Hinton's promotion of his representationalist capsule theory, I am somewhat taken aback by Hawkins' location hypothesis. He used to know better. At least, I thought he did. In his 2004 book On Intelligence (pdf), Hawkins wrote the following regarding visual processing in the brain (emphasis added):
People tend to think that there's a little upside-down picture of the world going into your visual areas, but that's not how it works. There is no picture. It's not an image anymore. Fundamentally, it is just electrical activity firing in patterns. Its imagelike qualities get lost very rapidly as your cortex handles the information, passing components of the pattern up and down between different areas, sifting them, filtering them.
Natural vision, experienced as patterns entering the brain, flows like a river. Vision is more like a song than a painting.

Many vision researchers ignore saccades and the rapidly changing patterns of vision. Working with anesthetized animals, they study how vision occurs when an unconscious animal fixates on a point. In doing so, they're taking away the time dimension. There's nothing wrong with that in principle; eliminating variables is a core element of the scientific method. But they're throwing away a central component of vision, what it actually consists of. Time needs a central place in a neuroscientific account of vision.
I remember being blown away when I first read the above excerpt. I was amazed for two reasons. First, these were ideas that I had understood years before I read Hawkins' book. Like Hawkins, I got my first understanding of intelligence and the brain by reading articles and papers on neurobiology, especially on the organization and operation of the retina. At the time, nobody in artificial intelligence gave a second thought to spiking neural networks and the importance of precise timing to intelligence and the brain. I thought I was alone.

Second, Hawkins is an avowed materialist and atheist. As an unabashed, card-carrying, Yin-Yang dualist, I knew that Hawkins' explanation of vision was correct but that it made no sense from a materialist point of view. Hawkins intuitively understood that there was no picture in the brain even though we clearly see a picture. How can that be possible?

I was astounded that Hawkins could still call himself a materialist while holding the refutation of materialism in his hand. Inexplicably, he never reached the logical conclusion that something other than the brain converted those neuronal spikes in the visual cortex into a picture, the fabulous 3D vista that we swear we see in front of our eyes but that exists nowhere. Something non-physical, something supernatural is obviously responsible. Had Hawkins made the leap to dualism, he would not have come out with his pathetic (I can't think of no other word to describe it) location hypothesis.

Materialism is a powerful mind blocker, a set of blinders that mainstream AGI researchers are more than willing to wear. It blinds them to the elephants that are standing right in front of them. Hawkins' steadfast refusal to give up his religious belief in materialism is the main reason that he has made no real progress since 2004. In spite of his amazing early insights and all of his millions, he really has had nothing to show. His HTM program is essentially another me-too program, nothing to get excited about. Even the clueless deep learning crowd have no respect for him. A shame, really. My advice to Hawkins is simple: throw away your blinders and return to your first love.

Coming Soon

In my next article, I will explain in more details how the brain solves the invariant object recognition problem without representation, using just timing and lots of sensors. Hang in there.

See Also:

The Curse of Materialism or Why People Like Jeff Hawkins and Geoffrey Hinton Will Never Figure Out AGI
A Critique of Numenta's Location Hypothesis
Why We Have a Supernatural Soul
The World Is Its Own Model or Why Hubert Dreyfus Is Still Right About AI
Dynamic Routing Between Capsules (Hinton et al)
A Theory of How Columns in the Neocortex Enables Learning the Structure of the World (Hawkins et al)
Does the Brain do Inverse Graphics? (Hinton et al)

Sunday, November 19, 2017

I Refuse to Work With Materialists And Atheists On AGI

I need neither their money nor their expertise. What I got, no one can take away from me. I have received something special and it is not for sale. I know who my source of knowledge is. If you are a materialist, don't even read my blog. I just thought I'd come right out and say this for the record.

The Curse of Materialism or Why People Like Jeff Hawkins and Geoffrey Hinton Will Never Figure Out AGI

I Just Realized Something Funny

Last night, while trying to understand the reasons that Jeff Hawkins, the founder of Numenta, arrived at his location hypothesis (which he erroneously believes is the secret to strong AI or AGI), it occurred to me that materialists like Hawkins will never figure out AGI. Mainstream AI researchers all work under the assumption that the physical brain is all there is to the mind and consciousness. It is a crippling delusion that forces them to conflate conscious/spiritual experiences with physical, cause-effect intelligence. I bursted out laughing. I find the whole thing irresistibly hilarious.

The Curse of Materialism

Jeff Hawkins is an avowed materialist and atheist. So are probably over 99% of professional AI researchers. They are extremely proud of it and will denigrate and blacklist everyone (including yours truly) who does not believe as they do. It is a particularly dangerous religion because these are people who are hoping to create superintelligent machines to worship. What is funny to me is that they don't realize that they shot mainstream AGI research in the foot with their own gun. As a Christian, I think the irony is exquisite. I'm still laughing as I write.

Hawkins came up with his location hypothesis because he is convinced that the 3D vista that he sees in front of his eyes is somehow represented physically in the circuitry of the brain. In other words, Hawkins believes that the brain models the world. He is a GOFAI scientist whether or not he realizes it. This is precisely the type of AI that the late Professor Hubert Dreyfus railed against: The world is its own model. Unfortunately, Dreyfus's words fell onto deaf ears. The entire mainstream AI community is laboring under the curse of materialism.

There Is No 3-Dimensional Model of the World in the Brain

The materialist sees a 3D world in front of him. But since he is convinced that the mind is the brain and that everything he experiences is also in the brain, he is forced to conclude that the brain maintains a 3D model of the world. It is a powerful illusion. This is why Hawkins believes that the brain must have special circuitry to generate a location signal.

It is true that we see a 3D vista but there is no 3D vista in the brain or anywhere else. It is supernatural. The brain only works with neuronal spikes. We consciously experience distance but there is no distance in the brain. Distance, space and volume are not physical properties. They are abstract entities that are part of the spirit or soul or whatever you want to call the non-physical entity that allows us to be conscious of certain physical processes in the brain. No, they are not magic. They are part of the Yin-Yang reality that we exist in. If you think distance, space and volume are physical entities, just ask yourself, what are they made of? What are their constituents?

But don't tell any of this to the likes of Jeff Hawkins and Geoffrey Hinton. They are liable to have an apoplectic fit. I will not belabor the point. This is something that requires deep thinking in order to undo the damage done to your minds by your upbringing in a world of lies and deception. Please read Why We Have a Supernatural Soul if you are interested.

PS. I am still laughing, hahaha...HAHAHA...hahaha... Sorry.

See Also:

A Critique of Numenta’s Location Hypothesis
The World Is Its Own Model or Why Hubert Dreyfus Is Still Right About AI
Why We Have a Supernatural Soul
Ex-Google Executive Registers First Church of AI With IRS

Thursday, November 16, 2017

A Critique of Numenta's Location Hypothesis

Why I Respect Numenta

I have always had respect for Numenta. Over the years, under the leadership of their maverick founder and chief architect, Jeff Hawkins, they have steadfastly maintained that deep learning was not the way to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI). They insisted that imitating the brain was the right way forward, that intelligence was based on the timing of sensory signals and that learning in the brain consisted mainly of making new synaptic connections, not modifying connection weights. They did it while the deep learning hype was in full swing. They never flinched even in the face of overt hostility from the mainstream AI community. They had a healthy, think-outside-the-box attitude. As a rebel, I admired that. Lately, however, and apparently reacting to pressure from the AI community to show some serious results, the folks at Numenta seem to have lost their way. Their latest offering, the so-called location hypothesis, misses the mark. Worse, there is no demo program to support the theory.

The Universal Invariant Recognition Problem

One of the most difficult problems in AI is universal invariant recognition. The human brain has the seemingly magical ability to recognize an object regardless of its position and orientation in the field of view. Deep learning experts tried to solve the problem by using brute force. That is, they train the network with millions of images in the hope of covering every possible situation. However, this approach will invariably leave holes that can lead to spectacular failures. So they (Yann LeCun et co) came up with a partial solution, a technique called convolution that gave the network a degree of translation invariance. Even then, deep neural nets can still be fooled by adversarial examples. It turns out that they can fail catastrophically if a previously learned pattern is modified by an imperceptibly small number of pixels. In other words, deep neural nets are not universally invariant. Some in the AI community (e.g., DeepMind) have been promoting deep learning as a stepping stone toward AGI. They are sorely mistaken. Others (e.g., Geoffrey Hinton and Yann LeCun) seem to be more aware of its limitations.

The Location Hypothesis

Jeff Hawkins and his team at Numenta believe they may have found the secret of universal invariance. They are proposing that the brain somehow generates a special signal that specifies the location of an object under observation and the location of its features relative to the object. The idea seems to be that, by knowing the position of an object relative to its features, the brain can compensate for positional differences and solve the problem of invariant recognition. They write:
We propose that a representation of location relative to the object being sensed is calculated within the sub-granular layers of each column. The location signal is provided as an input to the network, where it is combined with sensory data.
A key component of our theory is the presence in each column of a signal representing location. The location signal represents an “allocentric” location, meaning it is a location relative to the object being sensed. In our theory, the input layer receives both a sensory signal and the location signal. Thus, the input layer knows both what feature it is sensing and where the sensory feature is on the object being sensed. The output layer learns complete models of objects as a set of features at locations. This is analogous to how computer-aided-design programs represent multi-dimensional objects.
This article by Hawkins explains Numenta's approach in an easy to read style. While I admire the courage and willingness of Numenta to attack a hard problem head on, I must say that I am disappointed with this hypothesis.

Why Is the Location Hypothesis Flawed?

There are several reasons as follows.
  • As I have argued on many occasions, neurons are slow and there is very little time and energy in the brain for fancy calculations. Maintaining a location reference for visual objects is a particularly complex task. This is especially true if it is a 3-dimensional reference location which it would have to be if the sensed object is in a 3-dimensional world. The system would have to determine, not only the location of the object relative to the viewer but also the location of a reference point relative to the object itself. Is it in the middle of the object or somewhere else? This is not an easy task. And this is not even taking into account the fact that the brain must somehow detect the boundaries of the object under observation while excluding all the other objects in the scene.
  • A location signal is necessarily encoded with spikes (discrete pulses). A spike, by itself, has no information content other than its time of arrival. How many spikes would it take to encode a continually changing location vector in 3D space? The answer is: a lot. Again, there is no time for this in the brain. The highest spiking frequency is about 1000 Hz and the brain only has about a 10 millisecond window to process each sensory input. There is not enough time to encode even a 1-dimensional location for each input signal.
  • Let us suppose, for argument's sake, that the brain uses a single connection for each possible location. This would require millions of connections per feature. This is clearly out of the question.
I have other objections but these three should suffice to show that Numenta's location hypothesis is not biologically plausible.

A New Memory Model

I am proposing a new memory model based on spike timing. The model assumes that the brain perceives and learns by detecting many minute changes in its sensory space. I hypothesize that the brain uses branches in its hierarchical sequence memory to detect complex objects in the world regardless of their locations or orientations. A branch is a top-level node in the sequence hierarchy that is activated when it receives enough signals from lower level nodes to trigger a recognition. This memory model has the ability to instantly sense and understand complex objects in the environment, even objects that it has never encountered before.

There are two hierarchies, one for pattern detection (not shown) and one for sequences. Sequence memory is where actual object recognition happens. It receives discrete signals from pattern memory. Pattern neurons learn to detect a huge number of small elementary patterns such as lines, edges, dots, etc. Signals from pattern neurons are fed directly to the bottom or entry level of the sequence hierarchy. Pattern signals are stitched together in sequence memory to form any complex object.

As an example of sequence processing, consider the horizontal motion of a short vertical line or edge across the retina. This would result in multiple pattern neurons generating a series of spikes (one at a time) separated by a short interval. This series of event can be captured by an indefinitely long structure of connected nodes at the bottom level of the sequence hierarchy. I call these long structures "vines" to distinguish them from the shorter "sequences". The nodes in the vines would fire in succession as the line/edge moves horizontally in a given direction. There are many such sequence structures in sequence memory that capture various movements or other form of changes in the environment. The important thing to note here is that the interval between nodes in a vine is not fixed but can vary over time.

How the Brain Does Invariant Object Recognition

Obviously, the brain must have a simple and energy efficient solution that does not require lengthy calculations. Recognition must happen quickly and accurately using uncertain sensory information. How does the brain do it? I propose that the brain has a way to pool multiple concurrent sequences together to form branches that can detect any arbitrarily complex moving object. Recognition is based on a competitive, winner-take-all process. Only the branches that receive enough signals will trigger a recognition event.

Like almost everybody who has attempted to design a sequence hierarchy for AI, I used to think that a higher-level sequence was just a mechanism that served to join two or more non-overlapping sequences at a lower level. It took me years to figure out that I was wrong. It turned out that the main function of the sequence hierarchy is not to manage sequence storage but to find as many fixed temporal correlations between multiple co-occurring sequences as possible. Here is how it works.

It would be too inefficient to test every node in a vine with every other node in sequence memory. The brain uses a divide and conquer approach. Every vine is divided into multiple seven-node sequences. Why seven? It is a compromise. Less than seven would consume too much energy while more than seven would result in sluggish performance.

Let me come out on a limb and claim that these short sequences are implemented in the brain as cortical columns. In addition to serving as a mechanism for ordering pattern activations, they can also record their activities by retaining a trace (both time and speed) of their last activation in their minicolumns. The seventh node of every sequence can be connected to nodes in an upper level to form higher level vines. These are, likewise, divided into sequences which, in turn can send connections to an upper level. I happen to know the sequence hierarchy has 20 levels. How I know this and how vines are constructed are topics for a future article. The important thing to notice here is that upper sequences are just mechanisms that connect lower level sequences that are temporally related. They essentially bind a number of patterns together to form a single complex object.

A top level sequence is what I call a branch in the sequence hierarchy. It is a complex object detector. It is also the brain's mechanism of attention: only one branch can be "awake" at a time. During recognition, signals from pattern memory quickly travel (via the seventh nodes of many sequences) all the way up the sequence tree as far as they can go. A top level sequence will trigger a recognition event as soon as it receives enough signals from lower levels to account for the overall activation of only two of its nodes. This recognition event is invariant to the actual activation states at the lower level sequences. What matters is that enough signals reach the top.

Partial activation of more than two nodes is acceptable as long as the required overall amount is reached. This is how the brain handles uncertainty. It means that it takes relatively few sensory signals to trigger a recognition. Even partial occlusions can trigger a recognition. This, combined with the variable intervals of the sequences, is the reason that we can recognize faces and animals in the clouds, different handwritings or fonts, highly stylized art, etc. When a top level sequence is triggered, it sends a recognition signal via feedback pathways all the way back down to pattern memory where pattern neurons are also triggered, thus correcting any incomplete or corrupt pattern information.

Note: In a future article, I will explain how sequence learning is done using spike timing, among other interesting things. I may also have a demo program (one never knows) to support my claims. Stay tuned and be patient.

See Also:

Invariant Recognition of Visual Objects (Frontiers Media)
A Theory of How Columns in the Neocortex Enable Learning the Structure of the World (Frontiers Media)
Unsupervised Machine Learning: What Will Replace Backpropagation
Fast Unsupervised Pattern Learning Using Spike Timing
Fast Unsupervised Sequence Learning Using Spike Timing

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Occult Physics Will Blow Your Mind (Repost)

Note: I am reposting this because it keeps materialists, atheists and other undesirables off my back. Enjoy.


According to ancient occult physics, the electron is not elementary but consists of four subparticles. We exist in an immense 4-dimensional sea of energy arranged like a crystal lattice. This means unlimited clean energy, free for the taking once we learn how to tap into the lattice. The entire history of the universe is being recorded in the lattice. Ancient megalithic societies may have used this knowledge to transport huge quarried stones weighing 1000 tons or more. This is the first in a series of articles that I am writing on occult physics. I cannot promise that I will ever publish them all but, if or when I do, I can guarantee that they will blow everyone's mind.

Sacred Scientific Knowledge Hidden in Plain Sight

Many years ago, I stumbled on an amazing discovery. It occurred to me that a few ancient occult texts contained revolutionary scientific secrets about the fundamental principles of the physical universe. The secrets can be found in the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation. They are written in an obscure metaphorical language that sounds nothing like science. However, once one understands the meaning of some of the metaphors, things begin to fall into place. At one point in my research, I became frightened and stopped thinking about it for a long time. I had concluded that the potential harm to humanity that this knowledge could unleash if it fell in the wrong hands was just too great.
Assyrian Lamassu or Human-Headed Winged Bull - Southern Iraq
Most ancient societies recorded their sacred wisdom in precisely chosen metaphors that only the initiates understood. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Egyptians thought that certain occult sciences were so powerful that they erected huge symbolic stone monuments to preserve them for posterity while keeping their true meaning hidden from the masses.
Two Human-Headed Winged Bulls - Iran
Although the Biblical symbols are not identical to the ones found in Mesopotamia, the many similarities are striking. Both use images of wings, discs (wheels), bulls, lions, eagles, hands, feet and faces to symbolize various aspects of the sacred knowledge.

Sumerian Anunnaki Winged God and Disc
For whatever reason, historians and archaeologists love to associate ancient occult symbology with mythology and religious superstition but they could not be more wrong. It is almost as if some hidden power is hellbent on preventing mankind from learning about their glorious past. None other than Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, was convinced that there was secret knowledge encrypted in the Bible and in other ancient mythological writings. (Sources: What Was Isaac Newton's Occult Research All About? and Top 10 Crazy Secrets of Isaac Newton).

In my opinion, the Biblical seraphim and cherubim are occult descriptions of fundamental particles of matter and their properties (Sir Isaac would have jumped for joy if he had known about this). I believe this knowledge was known to ancient megalithic societies in Mesopotamia, Egypt, South America and elsewhere because it was the basis of the technology that they used to lift and transport huge cut stones weighing 1000 tons or more. I believe that a mastery of this knowledge will unleash an era of free unlimited clean energy and super fast transportation.

Stone of the Pregnant Woman - Baalbek, Lebanon
What follows is a short summary of the strange "living creatures" mentioned in the Bible and my interpretations. Note: I will not go into what I believe to be potentially dangerous aspects of this research.

Seraphim - Photons

Seraphim (singular, seraph) is a plural hebrew word that means the shining or burning ones. They are mentioned in the books of Revelation and Isaiah. They symbolize pure energetic particles and their properties. I have identified them as photons. There are 4 types of seraphim and each one has a different face property: man, lion, bull or eagle. One of the seraphim (the one with the bull's face) is responsible for electric phenomena and the other three for magnetic phenomena. The face of each seraph is associated with one of the 4 spatial dimensions (degree of freedom) of the cosmos. Each face has 2 possible states or orientations, forward or backward. It is more or less equivalent to what quantum physicists call the "spin angular momentum" of a particle, except that there really is no spin.

In all, the seraphim can have 8 possible orientations or spin states, 2 for each face. Two of the orientations, the ones associated with the face of a bull, determine whether or not the particle is involved with a positive or negative electric field. The other 6 states are responsible for magnetic phenomena.

Every seraph has energy properties which are symbolized by 6 wings. Unlike cherubim (explanation below), seraphim have no bodies or mass. Two of the wings of a seraph are used for motion, two are associated with its face and two with its feet. Yes, all matter particles have a property called feet (bull or calf hooves) which allow them to move in one direction of the 4th dimension at the speed of light. Wings, feet and hands are powerful metaphors the meaning of which I cannot expand on at this time. I will explain them further in future articles.

The Sea of Crystal - Zero-Point Energy

The most amazing thing about seraphim is that they are the constituents of an enormous 4-dimensional "sea of crystal" or "sea of glass" in which the normal matter of the universe exists and moves. It is a sea of wall-to-wall energetic particles (photons), lots of it, arranged as a stationary 4-dimensional lattice. We are totally immersed in it like fish in water and nothing could move without it. In fact, the entire visible universe is continually moving in the lattice in one dimension (bull) at the speed of light. As matter moves in the lattice, it leaves traces in it. In other words, the entire history of the universe is continually being recorded in the lattice down to the minutest details. Ancient Hindu and Buddhist societies were aware of this recording medium which was called the Akasha. Modern theosophists call it the Akashic records.

The closest analog to the lattice in modern physics is the so-called zero-point energy field that physicists believe permeates space but have no idea what it is made of or what its purpose is. Physicist Richard Feynman is reported to have said that "there is enough energy inside the space in an empty cup to boil all the oceans of the world." Gravitational, electric and magnetic phenomena are caused by the motion of matter in the lattice. Again, one day soon, in the not too distant future, society will learn how to tap into the lattice for unlimited clean energy production and super fast transportation. Current forms of transportation and energy production will become obsolete.

Cherubim - Quarter Electrons

Cherubim (singular, cherub) are symbolic winged creatures that modern theologians wrongly associate with angelic beings that fly around and do God's will. The Hebrew word cherubim is derived from the Assyrian term chiribu or kirubi which was the mystical name given to the representation of a winged bull or lion with a man's head. Various types of cherubim are mentioned in the Bible but my research is concerned strictly with the 4 cherubim (living creatures) in chapters 1 and 10 of the Book of Ezekiel. In chapter 10, verse 14, Ezekiel clearly equates the Hebrew word cherub with the face of a bull. He said nothing about angels.

Each living creature or cherub has 4 faces and 4 wings. Each also has a human body, 4 human hands and the feet of a bull. Having 4 faces means that a cherub has both electric and magnetic properties. All four cherubim move together in unison without turning, in any of the 4 dimensions.

My interpretation will come as a surprise. In my view, the cherubim are the 4 particles that comprise the electron or the positron. Yes, the electron is not an elementary particle as the Standard Model of particle physics would have us believe. Each cherub has 1/4 the charge of the electron. But this is not as surprising as it sounds. Physicists have known for some time that the electron is not truly elementary but they are a conservative and highly political bunch. Rather than come out and acknowledge the composite nature of the electron, they have taken to calling its constituent particles, quasiparticles instead. They also use the term quarter electron when they are feeling more liberal.

The 4 human hands of a cherub are special properties that confine them to stay and move together as one particle: they hold onto each other. The body of a cherub is a special kind of energy that physicists call mass. Each cherub also has a wheel or disc associated with it. The 4 wheels act as one wheel and move precisely with the 4 cherubim. In my interpretation, the wheel represents the electric field of the electron.

Coming Soon

In future blog articles, I will explain how particles move in the lattice and how the electric field of a charged particle works.

See Also:

Ezekiel 1: The Four Living Creatures, the Four Wheels and the Crystal Firmament
Ezekiel 10: The Four Cherubim and the Four Wheels
Isaiah 6: The Four Seraphim
Revelation 4: The Four Beasts and the Sea of Crystal
Physics: The Problem With Motion
There Is Only One Speed in the Universe, the Speed of Light. Nothing Can Move Faster or Slower

Saturday, October 28, 2017

The Biggest Crime of the Plutocracy Is that They Stole the Capital

The Crime

The biggest crime of the plutocracy is that they stole the capital (which represents the wealth of the earth) from the people and have gotten away with it for centuries. Almost all of the ills of society, from homelessness to rampant crime, can be attributed to this institutionalized thievery.

The Fear

The biggest fear of the plutocracy is that, one day, the masses will realize that they have been robbed and that they are slaves in a slave system. The ruling elite is fighting teeth and nails to prevent that from happening. They use censorship, surveillance, violence, wars and divisive propaganda to weaken us, confuse us and keep us in the dark.

Give Us What Is Ours

No, I do not believe in any form of socialism because socialism destroys the free market. I just believe that we, the people, should be given what is ours, the capital. Time is running out. We must wake up before artificial intelligence and automation eliminate all jobs and the world is turned into a welfare society condemned to survive on handouts from a criminal minority.

Monday, October 16, 2017

The Gravitational Wave Fraudsters Strike Again

The Speed of Gravity Scam

Today, the LIGO scammers announced that they have detected the first gravitational waves from the collision of two neutron stars that occurred 130 million years ago. They are pushing it as a big event in astronomy because this is the first time, they claim, that a gravitational wave detection was accompanied by the observation of light by both space and land-based observatories. A weaker gravitational wave was also detected by another interferometer in Italy called VIRGO. Although none of these experiments are designed to falsify the gravitational wave prediction, as good science would dictate, the dual detection would corroborate (not prove) the Einsteinian prediction that gravity propagates at the speed of light. The problem with this pseudoscientific prediction is that the planets and the galaxies behave as if gravity was instantaneous, just as Newton assumed. Why is it pseudoscientific? Only because the speed of gravity cannot be measured: the Einsteinian results are identical to the Newtonian results. This much was acknowledged by one of their own, relativity physicist Steven Carlip (see links below). In other words, we are swimming in an ocean of super expensive pseudoscience.

The Dual Detection and Triangulation Scam

But how do they know that both the EM signals and the so-called "gravitational wave" signals originated from the same collision? They don't, of course. They are lying through their teeth. They assume that both the LIGO and VIRGO signals were from the same collision and they use this assumption to calculate the part of the sky where the collision would have occurred if the assumption was true. Here is how Jennifer Chu of MIT news put it (emphasis added):
Though the LIGO detectors first picked up the gravitational wave in the United States, Virgo, in Italy, played a key role in the story. Due to its orientation with respect to the source at the time of detection, Virgo recovered a small signal; combined with the signal sizes and timing in the LIGO detectors, this allowed scientists to precisely triangulate the position in the sky. After performing a thorough vetting to make sure the signals were not an artifact of instrumentation, scientists concluded that a gravitational wave came from a relatively small patch in the southern sky.
Once they get a fix, they can look to see if light telescopes made an observation in the same area. It is pure luck. If there was no EM signal, they would ascribe the supposed collision to small black holes instead. This is not science. This is full blown crackpottery and scientific fraud to the tune of billions of dollars of our money.

We Must Put a Stop to the Lies and the Thievery of Big Science

This crap has been going on for many decades. We, the people are paying for this and we must rise up and put a stop to it. The fraudsters must be debunked and made to recant their fraudulent claims. But even if the people are currently helpless to do something about it, there is no doubt in my mind that justice will prevail soon, sooner than most suspect.

PS. I corrected a mistake in the article that Andreas brought to my attention.

See Also:

Aberration and the Speed of Gravity (Steven Carlip)
Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light? (Steven Carlip)
Why LIGO Is a Scam
Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam
LIGO Is a Billion-Dollar Scam Based on Bullshit Physics
Physics Nobel Prize Awarded to Crackpots and Frauds for Detection of Gravity Waves

Saturday, October 7, 2017

They Are Running Scared

Fear Is in the Air

UN Opens New Office to Monitor AI Development and Predict Possible Threats

The evil powers that control the world are really worried about what will happen after the arrival of advanced artificial intelligence. They should be. One of the first consequences of AGI is that the public will quickly realize that they have been robbed for centuries by a bunch of thieves in high places. Our economic systems are really slave systems. This is the reason that people are afraid that machines will take their jobs. If we had a just economic system, they would welcome intelligent robots and they would be delighted to have them do their work for them.

There is no question that we need a more equitable system and we need it fast in order to avoid disaster. But the power-hungry psychos would rather have global wars and widespread violence than give up their ill-gotten riches. They know they got a big problem on their hands and they are already pushing bullshit solutions such as "eco-economies" based on climate change alarmism and universal basic income (UBI). These "solutions" are, of course, designed to allow the jackasses to hold on to most of the wealth of the planet. Not all of us are deceived, however. After all, why should the unemployed masses get a subsistence handout from the government while the equally unemployed Mark Zuckerbergs of the world continue to live in decadent luxury. What makes them so special? Many, including yours truly, will rebel.

Of course, the greatest fear of the ruling elite is that an unknown enemy might take early control of AGI and use it to hurt their livelihoods and threaten their personal safety. This is the reason that modern societies have been turned into surveillance police states. We are being watched.

Revolution is in the air. Get ready to live in interesting times.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Physics Nobel Prize Awarded to Crackpots and Frauds for Detection of Gravity Waves

This Pisses Me Off

Nobel Prize for frauds. These three jackasses should be in jail instead.
Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish, and Kip Thorne, have been awarded the 2017 Nobel Physics Prize for their gravitational wave work with the LIGO project. This bothers the hell out of me because gravitational waves are based on bullshit science. They are based on the pseudoscientific Einsteinian prediction that gravity propagates at the speed of light. The problem is that the prediction cannot be tested by definition because the GR results are identical to the Newtonian results which assume that gravity is instantaneous.

General Relativists did some fancy math works to pretend that they are doing science. And they get away with it. They tell us with a straight face that gravity propagates at c even though it acts as if it were instantaneous just as Newton assumed. This kind of crackpottery from mainstream science is so pathetic and so blatantly fraudulent, it is not funny. The assholes are spending billions of dollars of our money on total crap and we have no say in the matter.

Time Travel Crackpot

Let us not forget that Kip Thorne (a good friend of Stephen Hawking, the crackpot in the wheelchair) is the Star Trek voodoo physicist who is convinced that time travel is possible even though every physicist worth their diploma knows that a time dimension makes motion impossible. This is the reason that nothing can move in spacetime and that Sir Karl Popper called spacetime, "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens" (source: Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper).

We, the people, must wake up and demand accountability from mainstream science. We are being taken to the cleaners by charlatans.

See Also:

LIGO Is a Billion-Dollar Scam Based on Bullshit Physics

Yoshua Bengio Is a Backpropagation Crackpot

Backpropagation in the Brain?

Yoshua Bengio gives an entire presentation (YouTube) in which he defends the hypothesis that backpropagation, the learning method used in deep neural networks, is also used by the brain. This is truly embarrassing, especially since he makes multiple references to deep learning luminary Geoffrey Hinton who just recently admitted that we should abandon backpropagation and start over.

Oh, the humanity! Oh, the mainstream crackpottery! And remember. These are people who get paid millions of dollars to know better.

See Also:

Samsung Electronics Launches AI Lab Headed by Joshua Bengio in Montreal, Canada
Unsupervised Machine Learning: What Will Replace Backpropagation?
AI Pioneer Now Says We Need to Start Over. Some of Us Have Been Saying This for Years

I Know the Hidden Secrets of the Brain

For the Record

I do understand how the brain works, from perception to motivation, motor learning and adaptation. I am not saying this to boast because I am not smart enough to figure out how the brain works on my own, not in a thousand years. I certainly did not learn the brain's secrets from mainstream AI or the neuroscience community. I learned them by deciphering ancient occult books that are thousands of years old. I am saying this for the record only. Take it or leave it.

PS. I am a crackpot and a kook. I will not deny it because it is true. LOL.

See Also:

Occult Physics Will Blow Your Mind