Saturday, June 17, 2017

Relativity Implicitly Assumes Instant Communication at a Distance While Explicitly Forbidding It. Not Even Wrong

Scientists Must be Made Accountable

I made this argument elsewhere but I thought that it was so damaging to mainstream physics and so important to the integrity of science that it deserved its own post. We are being taken to the cleaners by a well paid group of people whose job it is to come up with the best science that money can buy. Instead, they feed us lies after lies and they spend billions and billions of our money in the process. When they are caught in an outrageous lie, they create even more elaborate and expensive lies to cover it up. The billion-dollar LIGO project scam is a case in point. We must demand accountability from our scientists.

Relativist Pseudoscience

Relativity is a local theory. That is to say, it forbids action at a distance. While Newtonian gravity assumes that gravity acts instantaneously at a distance, General Relativists insist that gravity is propagated at the speed of light. The problem is that a finite speed of gravity would result in unstable orbits. It is a big problem indeed. Relativists claim that GR addresses our legitimate concern about the finite speed of gravity. They then go through an amazing exercise in pseudoscience, bad logic and superstition to explain how GR gets around the problem.

They argue that, by some unknown magic, the sun communicates information regarding its velocity relative to the earth and all other bodies in the universe. This information propagates at the speed of light. This way, the other bodies can somehow (more magic) read the information and more or less guess where the sun is even though they receive the information some time after it was sent. Earth receives the information about 8 minutes after emission. Of course, relativists decline to explain how this information is encoded, transmitted and how the other bodies detect it. They just write some equations and voila! That's the magic part. This part of the theory is strangely immune to falsification. Not one experiment is offered to determine the veracity of the hypothesis. It is pure pseudoscience. They are essentially telling us with a straight face that they somehow know that gravity acts as if it were instantaneous even though it isn't. But it gets worse, much worse.

Not Even Wrong

It is a laughably self-contradicting argument simply because there is no way that the sun can "know" about its velocity relative to any other body so as to transmit it to any of them. The problem has to do with the word ‘relative’. It is a problem with all observer-centric, relativity-based, local theories because the word ‘relative’ implies instantaneous knowledge between distant bodies even though such knowledge is forbidden by the local nature of the theory: nothing can move faster than the speed of light. So general relativists are breaking their own rule. On the one hand, they are saying that information must travel at or below the speed of light and this is why changes in gravity must travel at the speed of light. On the other hand, they are using instantaneous information to determine the relative velocity between distant bodies. This is not even wrong. And yet, this stinking pile of bullshit is what the ongoing LIGO project is based on. The public is being forced to pay for a scam but the scammers have found a way to remain immune to public scrutiny. This must stop. Someone needs to blow a loud whistle in order to unmask this bullshit.

Malevolent Alien Takeover?

The relativist argument for the finite speed of gravity is so painfully contrived and so wrong on the face of it that I am tempted to conclude that the physics community has been taken over by a malevolent alien entity hellbent on making humans look and act stupid. We fund scientific research with our money. It is ours. We own it. It is time to kick out the charlatans and bullshitters that have taken control of it.

See Also:

Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam
Why LIGO Is a Scam

Repost: Why LIGO Is a Scam

[Note: LIGO scammers and relativist bullshitters didn't like this article. So here it is again.] 

Abstract

In this article, I argue that the billion-dollar LIGO project that recently claimed to have detected gravitational waves from the collision of two black holes located more than a billion light years from earth is nothing but a scam to defraud the public. I argue that gravitational waves cannot exist because they are based on the false assumption that changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light. I further argue that the spacetime model is wrong because it is a block universe in which nothing happens and that gravity is a nonlocal or instantaneous phenomenon related to the law of the conservation of energy.

Stable Planetary Orbits or Newton Was Right

In spite of the incessant propaganda over the last century from the general relativity camp, gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon, just as Isaac Newton assumed. If changes in gravity traveled at the speed of light, as relativists claim, Newtonian gravity equations would not work at all and all planetary orbits would become unstable. There would be no planetary systems orbiting stars and there would be no galaxies. The reason is that it would take more than eight minutes for changes (caused by its motion around the Milky Way galaxy) in the sun's gravity to reach the earth and even longer for the more distant planets. So the earth's orbit around the sun would depend on where the sun was eight minutes ago, the time it takes changes in the gravitational field to reach the earth, and not on where it is now. This is not observed. As it is, Newtonian gravity is extremely accurate in predicting the orbits and positions of the planets. Minor effects that Newton could not have known about, such as clock slowing, are negligible. This is a fact. (see LaPlace calculation of the speed of gravity.)

Conservation of Symmetry

There is another reason, equally damning, that gravity must be instantaneous. It has to do with symmetry. Symmetry is an inherent part of the way the universe works. The conservation of symmetry is as much a law of nature as the conservation of momentum or energy. Geometry would not work without it. Conservation laws are nonlocal, meaning that they act over any distance, as if distance did not exist.

In spite of all the relativist claims regarding spacetime curvature (more on this later), gravity is undeniably caused by an energy deficit due to local violations in the conservation of energy. The deficit occurs when many particles (both massive and massless) exist at a particular location.

I have a hypothesis as to why the deficit happens but suffice it to say, for now, that it is the reason that clocks slow down in the presence of gravity. Regardless of the cause of the deficit, nature tries to eliminate it by moving energy, in the form of both massive and massless particles, toward the location of the deficit. Of course, it can never eliminate it because adding more matter results in even more violations.

The law of symmetry dictates that the shape of the gravitational field must be symmetrical around the source of the deficit, i.e., as perfectly spherical as possible. By analogy, the shape of the electric field around an electron must also be symmetrical. Otherwise, there would be a violation of symmetry. But if changes in the gravitational field propagated at c, as the physics community claims, it would create a non-symmetrical field around the source as it moves. This would be in violation of the conservation of symmetry, which is not allowed. Hence physicists are either wrong or lying about gravity.

Einstein's Block Universe in which Nothing Happens

Relativists claim that gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by massive bodies. But is this true? The surprising and inconvenient fact is that nothing can move in spacetime because a time dimension, as I explained in the previous post, makes motion impossible. This alone falsifies the spacetime model. In Conjectures and Refutations (pdf), Karl Popper called spacetime, Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens. He even compared Einstein to Parmenides of Elea who, along with his more famous student, Zeno, maintained that nothing changes. Not even wrong. Here's a partial quote (emphasis added):
At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning).
Einstein's block universe is a thorn on the side of relativists. How many times have we read about the magic properties of spacetime and how bodies travel along their geodesics in spacetime? How many times have we heard how matter curves spacetime and how the curvature of spacetime affects the motion of bodies? Only to find out that it was all a bunch of lies. Many physicists know about these things but they rarely mention them because it makes them look stupid. Besides, why rock the boat that you are riding in?

LIGO Fraud

If gravity is instantaneous (there can be no doubt about it, in my view), then LIGO must be a scam, a fraud perpetrated on an unsuspecting public to the tune of billions of dollars. Of course, the public who pays the salaries of LIGO physicists and funds their expensive projects has no way to verify their claims. But sooner or later, the chickens will come home to roost. Wait for it.

Addendum (6/2/16):

Relativity Implicitly Assumes Instant Communication while Explicitly Forbidding it

Relativists will, of course, reply with an argument that I have heard many times before. They will claim that I do not understand general relativity theory and that GR addresses my concern about the finite speed of gravity. They will argue that, by some unknown magic, the sun communicates information regarding its velocity relative to the earth and all other bodies in the universe. This way, the other bodies can somehow (more magic) read the information and more or less guess where the sun is even though they receive the information some time after it was sent. Of course, they decline to explain how this information is encoded, transmitted and how the other bodies detect it. That's the magic part. This part of the theory is somehow immune to falsification. Not very scientific, if you ask me. But it gets worse, much worse.

It is a laughably self-contradicting argument simply because there is no way that the sun can "know" about its velocity relative to any other body so as to transmit it to any of them. The problem has to do with the word ‘relative’. It is a problem with all observer-centric, relativity-based, local theories because the word ‘relative’ implies instantaneous knowledge between distant bodies even though such knowledge is forbidden by the local nature of the theory: nothing can move faster than the speed of light. So general relativists are breaking their own rule. On the one hand, they are saying that information must travel at or below the speed of light and this is why changes in gravity must travel at the speed of light. On the other hand, they are using instantaneous information to determine the relative velocity between distant bodies. This is not even wrong.

The argument is so stupid and so painfully contrived that I declined to address it when I first wrote the article. But I have since seen it repeated elsewhere on the web and I could not let it go without a refutation. This is the kind of crap that the public is forced to support with their hard earned money.

Steven Carlip's Aberration and the Speed of Gravity

Relativity proponent Steven Carlip wrote a paper (Aberration and the Speed of Gravity) in 1999 that supposedly laid the problem to rest. In the paper's abstract he writes (emphasis added):

"By evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating mass, I show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting cg=c."

Ironically, Carlip's use of the phrase "velocity-dependent interactions" in the abstract immediately refutes his argument that information about the sun's velocity relative to the earth or any other body can be determined in the sun's frame of reference and communicated to other bodies. This would have to assume the existence of either absolute motion/position or instantaneous communication between distant bodies, both of which the theory forbids. The fact that such crackpottery can make it past peer review shows that relativity physics is not about science. It is strictly about politics. Einstein's physics is now a full-fledged religion and political movement.

New: Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam

Addendum (6/4/16):

Infinite Regress and the Graviton

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the relativist hypothesis is correct. In order to communicate information about its relative velocity to other bodies, a massive object would have to encode it in a particle which would then travel at the speed of light out into space. Physicists call this particle, the graviton. The problem with the use of a mediating particle as the carrier of the gravitational force is that gravity, unlike the other forces, affects everything the same way. This includes the gravitons themselves. This immediately introduces an infinite self-referential regress that throws a giant monkey wrench into the works. It is an insurmountable problem. But don't tell quantum gravity physicists about it. The graviton idea is one of their most beloved pet theories.

Parlor Tricks

But that is not all. Since physicists cannot account for the self-energy of the graviton, they have to use one of their favorite parlor tricks to explain away the obvious violation of the conservation of energy: physics via labeling. Just call the graviton "virtual" et voila! Problem solved. It is embarrassing, to say the least.

The All-Seeing Nonlocal Universe

The only alternative is that there is no graviton. We are now back to Newtonian physics which makes no assumptions about the mechanism of gravity. If so, how can the gravitational force be communicated to other bodies? The answer is that there is no communication. Gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon. Everything "feels" or "sees" the gravity of everything else instantly. Distance is a perceptual illusion. The universe is one and all-seeing. Or, to borrow a Biblical metaphor, everything is "full of eyes".

See Also

Aberration and the Speed of Gravity (Carlip)
Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light? (Carlip)
Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How to Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Physicists Don't Know Shit
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Why Gravitational Waves Are Nonsense
Physics: The Surprisingly Simple Reason that the Speed of Light Is the Fastest Possible Speed and that Particle Decay Is Probabilistic

Thursday, June 15, 2017

There Is Only One Speed in the Universe, the Speed of Light. Nothing Can Move Faster or Slower

Quantum Jumps at the Speed of Light

The truth about the speed of light will surprise everybody, physicists and laymen alike. There is actually only one speed in the universe and that is the speed of light. Nothing can move faster or slower, period. A particle moves by making quantum jumps at the speed of light interspersed with rest periods. The duration of a rest period is equal to that of a jump. If a particle appears to move at half the speed of light, its motion actually consists of an equal number of jumps and rest periods. At the speed of light, it is all jumps and no rest periods. At ordinary speeds, a moving particle is at rest almost all the time with just a few jumps sprinkled in.

Contrary to the Claims of Relativists, There Is No Time Dimension

Why is there only one speed in the universe? Again, the actual reason will surprise. In spite of all the indoctrination and the incessant relativist propaganda we have been subjected to in the last one hundred years or so, there is no such thing as a time dimension. A time dimension would make motion impossible. Why? The short answer is that moving in time is self-referential. The slightly longer answer is that a change in time implies a velocity in time which would have to be given as v = dt/dt = 1, which is nonsense. This is why nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime and why spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. All that time travel through wormholes stuff is crackpottery, of course. But please do not mention this to Star Trek fanatics.

Since there is no time dimension, nature cannot calculate durations. This means that all jump durations are equal to a fundamental duration, which is the interval it takes a particle to move a fundamental distance, a very minute length that some believe is the Planck length. The interval is Planck time.

Nontemporality Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg of Crackpottery in Modern Physics

The non-existence of a time dimension explains other phenomena as well, such as why particle decay is probabilistic. But the crackpottery of spacetime goes much further: there is no space either. There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions. Everything else is either abstract or BS. Physics is a lot more interesting than any of us suspected.

See Also

Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam
Why LIGO Is a Scam

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Two Simple Rules Govern Goal-Oriented Motor Learning in the Brain. How Do I Know This? Part III

Abstract

In Part II, I revealed that the two rules of goal-oriented motor learning are, first, to eliminate connections with conflicting motor commands, and second, to eliminate connections that pursue the wrong goals. Below I explain what a goal is and how to go about eliminating bad motor connections.

What Is a Goal?

There are two types of goals, simple goals and complex goals. A simple goal is the hoped-for occurrence of a single event such as the detection of a learned pattern. A complex goal consists of any number of elementary goals, either a sequence of pattern detections or multiple sequences of pattern detections. The brain uses two types of hierarchies, one to manage pattern detections and the other for sequence detections. Given that a pattern is a group of concurrent sensory signals, it pays to think of a pattern detector as a complex or high-level sensor.

Based on my research, I determined that a basic goal in the brain's sequence hierarchy is the hoped-for occurrence of a short sequence of pattern detections. I discovered from reading the book of Zechariah that every sequence detector in memory is a unit of seven nodes and each sequence can detect multiple speeds. In other words, each sequence has multiple goals. I will not go into the details in this article but this is implemented in the cortical columns of the neocortex. So, in order to achieve a goal, a sequence detector in memory must generate a motor command that results in the detection of the hoped-for event and the emission of a recognition spike or signal.

"Walking" and "feet" are used repeatedly in both Revelation and Zechariah to symbolize motor output. "Eye" is the metaphor for a pattern detector. I first deduced that the church of Thyatira symbolized the motor system of the brain because it is the fourth, or middle church, of the seven churches. Why is this significant? It is because, in the first message to the seven churches, we read the following (italics mine):
Rev 2:2. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
The original Greek word translated "midst" in the King James version literally means "center" or "middle". The "seven golden candlesticks", we are told elsewhere, are the seven churches. The opening message to the church of Thyatira (Revelation 2) is all about "eyes" and "feet":
Rev 2:18. And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
The sensorimotor connection is undeniable. Immediately, we see a direct link between pattern detection (eyes) and motor output (feet). Both are refined in fire, meaning that they have been tried and tested during the learning process. In chapter 3 of Zechariah we read the following:
Zech 3:7. “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘If you will walk in My ways and if you will perform My service, then you will also govern My house and also have charge of My courts, and I will grant you free access among these who are standing here.
Here Yahweh is speaking to Joshua the high priest. Joshua symbolizes a sensorimotor unit. He is told to walk (motor output) in the ways of Yahweh (no fornication/adultery) and to perform Yahweh's service (no idolatry) in the temple. Joshua's duty (service or goal) is to act so as to detect a specific pattern. The main lesson of this verse is that pattern detectors are their own goals. The brain achieves its goals by sending specific motor commands that result in the detection of specific patterns.

How to Get Rid of Bad Motor Connections

It is one thing to detect a motor error but it is another to correct it. If a motor signal does not result in the hope-for detection, should its connection be immediately disconnected? Even more problematic, if a motor conflict is detected, how do we know which connection is the culprit? Is it the connection that just fired or is it the one that fired right before it? It could also be a temporary error. Here is what Revelation says about it:
Rev 2:21. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Verse 21 tells us that Jezebel is given time to repent of her fornication. Why is Jezebel given time to repent of her fornication? My take on it is that there is no way to tell right away who the real culprit is. The strange thing is that, not only is Jezebel not given time to repent of her idolatry, but the message to Thyatira says nothing about how to eliminate idolatrous connections. Why is that? The answer, as we shall see below, is that the idolaters are automatically destroyed with the fornicators.

If the conflicts continue, Jezebel is cast onto a bed of sickness, meaning that she must stop all new connection activities while the problem is being solved. Those that commit adultery with her are also severely punished. This is a way of saying that motor connections have strengths that will be weakened if the conflicts do not go away. But how do connections acquire their strength? The answer is found in verse 23: "and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." In other words, a motor connection is rewarded every time its motor signal is successful in achieving its expected goal.

Now comes the clincher that solves the entire puzzle. Verse 23 declares: "And I will kill her children with death." Why punish the children and not the adults? This is yet another strange thing for us to digest but keep in mind that this is a metaphorical text. It turns out that conflicting connections are invariably among the youngest ones, i.e., the ones that have not yet gained strength according to their works. Since idolaters are rarely or never rewarded, they are the first to be eliminated. So, weakening all the connections when conflicting signals are detected is sufficient to get rid of both fornicators and idolaters in one fell swoop.

Most muscles in the body can receive commands from thousands of sources originating from many areas of the cerebral cortex. Motor learning alone would not be enough to keep them from conflicting with one another. Luckily, the brain has another way to restrict access to its actuators. Zechariah calls it the branch. Only a relatively small branch of the sequence hierarchy is awake at any one time. The branch represents whatever the brain is paying attention to. Motor commands can only be sent from the currently awakened branch.

Conclusion

The book of Zechariah complements the book of Revelation and vice versa. Both are treasure troves of information about the organization of the brain. There is so much knowledge about the brain, consciousness and even fundamental physics packed into these two visions, it would take several books on the topics covered to do it full justice. Still, the whole thing will seem almost too simple. Contrary to the expectations of the mainstream AI community, no complex math or convoluted engineering is required. It turns out that the problem of intelligence is not one of complexity but one of searching for a needle in a haystack. It is the kind of search that could take us hundreds if not thousands of years to conduct. Fortunately for the world, we won't have to.

In this article, I attempted to show that the secret of sensorimotor learning is here and available to anyone who is willing to hear the message. And it is not just motor learning. The full secret of true artificial intelligence is within our grasps if we heed the message. Indeed, as the book says, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

See Also:

Contrary to Claims in the Scientific Literature, the Cerebellum Cannot Generate Speech. How Do I Know This?
Short-term Attention Span Lasts 12.6 s and it Takes 35 ms to Switch from one Subject to Another. How do I Know This?
200 Million Horsemen and the Corpus Callosum

Friday, June 9, 2017

Two Simple Rules Govern Goal-Oriented Motor Learning in the Brain. How Do I Know This? Part II

Abstract

In Part I of this three-part article, I identified the message to the Church of Thyatira in the Book of Revelation as a metaphorical description of the brain's motor control and motivation system. I explained that Revelation uses the historical and Biblical figure, Jezebel, to symbolize the connection making mechanism of the motor learning system of the brain. Below, I reveal the two rules used by the brain to test the connections. One is symbolized by fornication and the other by eating things sacrificed unto idols.

Fornication: Motor Conflict

In Mosaic law, fornication, aka adultery, means having relations with a woman who is already married to someone else. In Revelation's symbolic language, it signifies a motor conflict. A motor conflict is a contradictory or inconsistent motor command signal. It occurs when an actuator (e.g., a muscle) receives a motor command signal to do something that it is already doing. It follows that there are two kinds of motor conflicts as follows:
  1. A motor conflict occurs if an already stopped actuator receives a signal to stop.
  2. A motor conflict occurs if an already started actuator receives a signal to start.
This almost seems trivial but do not be fooled. Its power is in its simplicity. Without a quick rule to eliminate motor conflicts, it would be impossible for the brain to learn smooth and coordinated motor behavior.

Eating Meat Sacrificed Unto Idols: Pursuing the Wrong Goal

Idolatry is the act of serving gods other than Yahweh. In ancient Israel, the duties of the temple priests included eating portions of the meat from the animals sacrificed to Yahweh. When Jezebel married King Ahab of Israel and became queen, she convinced the temple priests to engage in ritual fornication and to eat meat sacrificed to the ancient Sumerian god Baal and the goddess Asherah. In the symbology of the book of Revelation, serving a foreign god is a metaphor for pursuing the wrong goal.

Coming Next

Goal-oriented behavior would obviously be impossible without goals. In other words, goals must exist in memory before the brain can seek them. But what is a goal? And how does the motor system determine whether or not a motor command achieved its goal? The answers to these important questions can be found in chapter 3 of the Book of Zechariah. This will be the topic of Part III of this article.

See Also:

Contrary to Claims in the Scientific Literature, the Cerebellum Cannot Generate Speech. How Do I Know This?
Short-term Attention Span Lasts 12.6 s and it Takes 35 ms to Switch from one Subject to Another. How do I Know This?
200 Million Horsemen and the Corpus Callosum

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Two Simple Rules Govern Goal-Oriented Motor Learning in the Brain. How Do I Know This? Part I

Abstract

Learning in the brain is a trial and error process. The trial part consists of making random synaptic connections and the error part consists of testing the connections. If a connection breaks a preset rule, it is severed and the process continues. In this article, I argue that the brain uses two simple rules to test the connections between the neocortex and the motor system. How do I know this? I do, not because I learned it from the scientific literature, but because I decoded a 2000 year-old occult book known as the Book of Revelation. Many years ago, I discovered that the books of Zechariah and Revelation use clever metaphors to describe the organization and operation of the human brain and consciousness.

Motor Learning in the Brain

A motor command is a signal that controls a motor action such as the contraction or relaxation of a muscle. The cerebral cortex generates two types of motor commands, one to start an action that has not yet been started and another to stop a previously started action. This is implemented in the brain's basal ganglia (the voluntary motor control system) via the use of excitatory and inhibitory connections. Actions are performed by actuators and are maintained by tonic motor neurons that continually fire when not inhibited. A muscle actuator, for example, tenses up if its motor neuron begins firing and relaxes if the neuron stops firing. The cerebral cortex makes millions of synaptic connections with the motor system. Each connection can either start an action or terminate it when it receives a signal. The connections are made during motor learning using a trial and error process.

The million dollar question is, how does the brain tell the difference between a good and a bad connection? Neurobiologists do not know the answer to this question but I do. How is that possible? I know, not because I am some kind of genius, but because I found the answer in chapter 2 of the Book of Revelation. Based on my research, I concluded that the message to the church in Thyatira, beginning at verse 18, is a metaphorical description of the motor and motivational system of the brain.

The Secret of Motor Learning: Hiding in Plain Sight

The holy grail of robotics is goal-oriented behavior. The problem is, nobody knows how to do it. But what if the secret of motor learning was already out? What if all one had to do to unlock the secret was to decipher a little verse from a two thousand-year old occult book written in Greek by a Christian Jew, a man named John?
Rev 2:20. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
The book of Revelation uses known historical and religious figures, places and events to symbolize various aspects of the functional organization of the brain. Jezebel is an infamous character in the Old Testament known for her adultery and idolatry. According to the Book of Kings, she was a queen of Israel in the 9th century BC, the wife of king Ahab. In the message to the church in Thyatira, Jezebel is used metaphorically to represent the trial part of the trial and error motor learning process. In other words, she symbolizes the connection making mechanism of the brain's motor system.

Jezebel calls herself a prophetess without actually being one, meaning that the connections are made randomly without knowing the consequences. Most of the connections lead to bad behavior symbolized by fornication and eating things sacrificed unto idols.

Coming Next

In Part II, I will decode the true meaning of these powerful metaphors to unveil the secret of motor learning, aka the holy grail of robotics.

See Also:

Contrary to Claims in the Scientific Literature, the Cerebellum Cannot Generate Speech. How Do I Know This?
Short-term Attention Span Lasts 12.6 s and it Takes 35 ms to Switch from one Subject to Another. How do I Know This?
200 Million Horsemen and the Corpus Callosum

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Contrary to Claims in the Scientific Literature, the Cerebellum Cannot Generate Speech. How Do I Know This?

Abstract

In this article, I make the bold claim that the cerebellum does not generate speech. I know this, not because I learned it from the scientific literature (scientists actually claim the opposite is true), but because I found out about it from a 2000 year-old occult book known as the book of Revelation. Years ago, I discovered that the books of Revelation and Zechariah contained revolutionary scientific knowledge about the brain and consciousness written in a symbolic language intended to hide their true meaning. That is, until now.

Darwinism Is a Religion of Cretins

A search on Google for "cerebellum speech" quickly reveals that researchers in neurobiology and neuroscience either believe or blindly parrot the claim that the cerebellum contributes to speech production. It turns out that most of the researchers who make claims about the speech capabilities of the cerebellum do so on the basis of the supposed correctness of Darwinian evolution. They believe (or rather, want you to believe) that the cerebellum must have evolved over millions of years to contribute to speech output. The truth is that there is no actual neurobiological evidence to support their conjecture. It is pure pseudoscience based on the belief that the theory of evolution explains the origin and evolution of living organisms. Darwinism is truly a religion of cretins.

Why Mainstream Scientists Are Wrong About the Cerebellum

The only evidence scientists have offered to support their pseudoscientific claim is the observation that damage to the cerebellum can result in speech difficulties and, in some cases, even total mutism. They then erroneously conclude that this is because the cerebellum contributes to speech output. But this is not how it really works. It is not even close to how it works.

The reason that people with cerebellar lesions have difficulty with speech is that the cortex can only pay attention to one thing at a time. The function of the cerebellum is to handle routine but important tasks such as standing up or sitting up straight, walking, maintaining balance and posture, etc., while the conscious brain is busy thinking, speaking or focusing on something else. Without the help of the cerebellum, the neocortex is forced to perform the routine tasks consciously. In other words, the neocortex cannot speak at the same time that it is maintaining balance, posture or standing up straight. This is why we need a cerebellum.

Many patients with cerebellar damage learn to cope by quickly switching between tasks every fraction of a second. This causes them to speak in a halting or staccato voice when sitting up or standing. Depending on the lesion, their bodies often tremble when they speak. However, if they are lying down, their voice return to normal. They can speak freely without interruption because they no longer have to consciously maintain posture or balance. This would not happen if the cause of the speech impediment was the cerebellum. Speech problems that occur after cerebellar lesions are obviously side effects and not indicative of cerebellar speech production capabilities.


The Message to the Church in Laodicea

To repeat, I did not come to this conclusion by reading scientific papers. How could I since the published papers claim otherwise? I did it by deciphering certain passages in the occult books of Revelation and Zechariah. There are two passages in the book of Revelation, in particular, that inform us about the brain's ability to speak. One is found in the message to the church in Pergamum (chapter 2) and the other in the message to the church in Laodicea (chapter 3). I have identified Pergamum as the center of speech processing and Laodicea as the cerebellum.

The occult texts leave no doubt that the cerebellum is not able to speak. The message to the church in Laodicea teaches us that the cerebellum receives its teachings from the conscious parts of the brain. What is of interest to this article is the following:
Rev 3:16. "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
The "lukewarm" metaphor signifies that the cerebellum cannot make a decision to act on its own. It can go either way. It is not allowed to speak for this reason. This is what the metaphor "I will spit you out of my mouth" means.

The Message to the Church in Pergamum

The Pergamum message is about the motor learning mechanism of speech. I know this because of the following verse:
Rev 2:16. "Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth."
The "mouth" metaphor is unmistakable but what is the meaning of the "sword" metaphor ? I cannot go into the details but suffice it to say that the message to Pergamum teaches us that motor learning for speech production is not unlike other types of motor learning: it works through trial and error. The main difference is that it concerns only speech production and cannot be automated in the cerebellum. Connections are made and, if they are found to be wrong, they are severed. The sword symbolizes the correction mechanism. It is a "two-edged sword" because there are just two types errors during motor learning.

How do I know that speech production is the only form of motor behavior that cannot be automated in the cerebellum? I know it from this verse:
Rev 2:17: "To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it."
The "hidden manna" metaphor signifies that members of the church of Pergamum are priests in God's Temple because only priests had access to the hidden manna. This is a reference to the occult book of Zechariah which uses the "Temple" metaphor to represent the seat of memory and the priests to represent units of sequence memory. This also tells us that sequence memory has direct motor output connections. Every priest is given a "stone" that represents a specific place in the Temple or an item in memory. Each priest also has a "name" that symbolizes a unique sensorimotor function.

The cerebellum learns by observing conscious motor behavior that is generated by the sequence detectors in memory. The symbolism is simple: the cerebellum learns sensorimotor behavior by knowing the names of the priests in the Temple. It cannot learn speech motor behavior because every winning member of the church of Pergamum is given a new name "which no one knows but he who receives it."

Conclusion

Given the nature of my work, it goes without saying that it would never be accepted for publication in a mainstream scientific journal. Not that I care, mind you. I would never publish anything in a mainstream journal anyway. I abhor elitism. Nevertheless, I stand by my claim that the cerebellum does not contribute to speech generation. It is a scientific claim because it can be falsified by the observation of actual connections between the cerebellum and the speech areas. I claim that those connections do not exist. I stake my reputation on it.

See Also:

Short-term Attention Span Lasts 12.6 s and it Takes 35 ms to Switch from one Subject to Another. How do I Know This?
200 Million Horsemen and the Corpus Callosum

Friday, May 12, 2017

Short-term Attention Span Lasts 12.6 s and it Takes 35 ms to Switch from one Subject to Another. How do I Know This?

The Amazing Occult Books of Revelation and Zechariah

I know precise details about the brain's attention mechanism that are yet undiscovered by science. I know, not because I am some kind of genius, but because I have decoded a large part of the ancient occult books of Revelation and Zechariah. These two books use clever metaphors to describe the organization and operation of the human brain and consciousness. Based on my interpretation, I learned that most of the cerebral or memory cortex is asleep almost all the time. The cortex is organized hierarchically like a tree (symbolized by an olive tree in the ancient texts) and only one branch of the tree (an olive branch) is awake at any one time. When a branch is awakened, it can only remain so for a short time. The 12.6 seconds value comes from this passage in chapter 11 of Revelation, emphasis added:
Rev 11:3. And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.”
There are two witnesses (also called olive branches and lampstands) because the brain consists of two hemispheres. According to my research, "day" is code for the duration of a neuronal cycle, which is about 10 milliseconds in the brain. 1260 days is thus 12.6 seconds. This is how long the brain can keep its attention focused on one thing. At the end of the 12.6 seconds, attention is terminated and the brain essentially goes into a very short coma lasting 35 milliseconds. I know this from the following verses:
Rev 11:7. When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them.
Rev 11:11. But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet;
The "beast that comes up out of the abyss" is part of the attention control mechanism. "Three and a half days" represents 3.5 x 10 or 35 milliseconds. After this, attention is resurrected somewhere else in memory when another branch of the memory hierarchy is awakened, one in each hemisphere.

Attention Control: An Open Door Which No One Can Shut

My current understanding of the texts is that there is a special branch in the memory hierarchy (symbolized by the church of Philadelphia in Revelation) whose job is to determine where attention should go at any moment. This branch is given an "open door which no one can shut", meaning that it is always active. It continually selects a number of other branches for activation. The branch with the most votes is the winner. According to Zechariah's text, the ultimate decision on which branch to awaken belongs to the spirit that resides in the brain. This is what free will is about. In an artificial intelligence, attention control would have to be implemented strictly algorithmically. If there are more than one winning branch, a winner would be chosen at random.

More to Come

Again, you will not find these things in any neuroscience book. These are falsifiable predictions of my research. There is a treasure trove of other exciting stuff in the occult texts. Stay tuned.

See Also

Contrary to Claims in the Scientific Literature, the Cerebellum Cannot Generate Speech. How Do I Know This?
200 Million Horsemen and the Corpus Callosum

Monday, April 24, 2017

Professor Hubert Dreyfus (1929 - 2017)


UC Berkeley Professor Hubert Dreyfus has passed away at the age of 87. Professor Dreyfus is a hero of mine. He was a fearless rebel at heart, the first to criticise the AI community for their symbolic AI nonsense. They hated him for it but he was right, of course. Did the AI community ever apologise for their personal attacks on him? Of course not. The AI community has always been full of themselves and they still are.

Dreyfus contributed more to the field of artificial intelligence than its best practitioners. His insistence that the brain does not model the world is an underappreciated tour de force. His ability to connect the works of his favorite philosophers (Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty) to the working of the brain was his greatest intellectual achievement in my opinion. I wrote an article about this topic in July of last year. Please read it to appreciate the depth of Dreyfus' understanding of a field that rejected him.

The World Is its Own Model or Why Hubert Dreyfus Is Still Right About AI

The world owes Professor Dreyfus a debt of gratitude. Thank you, Professor.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Signals, Sensors, Patterns and Sequences

[Note: The following is an excerpt from a paper I am writing as part of the eventual release of the Rebel Speech demo program, the world's first unsupervised audio classifier. I have not yet set a date for the release. Please be patient.]

Abstract

Signals, sensors, patterns and sequences are the basis of the brain’s amazing ability to understand the world around it. In this paper, I explain how it uses them for perception and learning. Although I delve a little into the neuroscience at the end, I restrict my explanation mostly to the logical and functional organization of the cerebral cortex.

The Perceptual System

Four Subsystems

Perception is the process of sensing and understanding physical phenomena. The brain’s perceptual system consists of four subsystems: the world, the sensory layer, pattern memory and sequence memory. Both pattern and sequence memories are unsupervised, feedforward, hierarchical neural networks. As explained later, the term “memory” is somewhat inadequate. The networks are actually high level or complex sensory organs. An unsupervised network is one that can classify patterns, objects or actions in the world directly from sensory data. A feedforward network is one in which input information flows in only one direction. A hierarchical network is organized like a tree. That is to say, higher level items are composed of lower level ones.

The world is the main perceptual subsystem because it dictates how the rest of the system is organized. The brain learns to make sense of the way the world changes over time. Elementary sensors in the sensory layer detect minute changes in the world (transitions) and convert them into precisely timed discrete signals that are fed to pattern memory where they are combined into small concurrent patterns. These are commonly called “spatial” patterns although it is a misleading label because concurrent patterns are inherently temporal and used by all sensory modalities, not just vision.

Signals from pattern detectors travel to sequence memory where sequences (transformations) are detected. Sequence memory is the seat of attention and of short and long-term memory. It is also where actual object recognition occurs. An object is a top-level sequence, i.e., a branch in the sequence hierarchy. A recognition event is triggered when the number of signals arriving at a top sequence detector surpasses a preset threshold. Recognition signals (green arrow) from sequence memory are fed back to pattern memory. They are part of the mechanism used by the brain to deal with noisy or incomplete patterns in the sensory stream.

Sequence memory can also generate motor signals but that is beyond the scope of this paper. What follows is a detailed description of each of the four subsystems.

(to be continued)

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Thalamus Prediction

Concurrent Pattern Hierarchy

This is just a short post to make a quick prediction about the internal organization of the thalamus, a relatively small but complex area of the brain that is thought to serve primarily as a relay center between various sensors and the sensory cortex. Given my current understanding of the brain and intelligence, I predict that the parts of the thalamus that process sensory signals (e.g., the lateral and medial geniculate nuclei) will be found to be hierarchically organized. The function of the hierarchy is to discover small concurrent patterns in the sensory space. These are commonly called "spatial patterns" in neuroscience. I personally don't like the use of the word "spatial" to refer to patterns because I think it is misleading. All patterns are temporal in my view, even if they refer to visual patterns. Here are some of the characteristics of the thalamic pattern hierarchy as predicted by my current model:
  • The hierarchy consists of a huge number of pattern detectors organized as binary trees.
  • The bottom level of the hierarchy receives signals from sensors.
  • The hierarchy has precisely 10 levels. This means that the most complex patterns have 1024 inputs.
  • Every level in the hierarchy makes reciprocal connections with the first level of the cerebral cortex.
  • Every pattern detector receive recognition feedback signals from the first level of the cerebral cortex.
The cerebral cortex (sequence memory) can instantly stitch these elementary patterns to form much bigger entities of arbitrary complexity. A number of researchers in artificial general intelligence (AGI), such as Jeff Hawkins and Subutai Ahmad of Numenta, assume (incorrectly in my view) that both concurrent and sequential patterns are learned and detected in the cortical columns of the cerebral cortex. In my model of the cortex, the cortical columns are used exclusively for sequence learning and detection while concurrent patterns are learned and recognized by the thalamus.

Stay tuned.

Edit 3/16/2017, 2:42 PM:

I should have elaborated further on the binary tree analogy. I prefer to call it an inverse or upside-down binary tree. That is to say, each node (pattern detector) in the tree receives only two inputs from lower level nodes. Each node may send output signals to any number of higher level nodes. It is a binary tree in the sense that the number of inputs doubles every time one climbs up one level in the hierarchy.

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Raising Money for AI Research

Smartphone Apps

I refuse to solicit or accept money from anyone to finance my research because I don't want to be indebted to or controlled by others. So I recently came up with a plan to put some of the knowledge I have acquired over the years to good use and do it in a way that does not reveal my hand too much. I am working on two intelligent mobile applications as described below. Let me know if you think they might be useful to you.

1. Crystal Clear Smartphone Conversations

The first app will filter out all background sounds other than the user's voice during a call. It will also repair or clean up the user's voice by filling in missing signals if necessary. Can be activated or deactivated at the touch of a button. Advantage: Crystal clear conversations.

2. Voice-based Security

The second app will use both voice and speech recognition to eliminate passwords. It does this by asking the user to read a random word or phrase. This app can be used for unlocking the phone, accessing accounts, etc. If your voice changes over time or if you want to give someone else access to your accounts, the app can be reset in an instant. Advantage: High security and no need to remember passwords.

Development

Although I think the first app has a better chance of being successful, I believe the second one is also doable. Some in the voice authentication and security business may disagree but the human voice is very much like a fingerprint. Every voice is unique in subtle ways that current technologies may not be able to capture. I use Microsoft Visual Studio and C# exclusively for programming. I will be using the Xamarin cross-platform tools to deploy the apps for the Windows Phone, the iPhone and Android phones. I don't anticipate needing GPU coprocessing.

I will release beta-test versions as soon as they are ready. Given my schedule, I anticipate the first app to be ready in two or three months.

The Ultimate Goal

If any of the apps is successful, I may venture into the hearing aid business. My plan is to generate enough funds to finance an artificial intelligence and computer research and development company. I believe that the requirements of true intelligence call for a new type of computer hardware and a better way to create software. My ultimate goal (or dream) is to build a truly intelligent bipedal robot that can do all your chores around the house such as cleaning, preparing food, babysitting the kids, doing the laundry, gardening, etc. A tall order, I know.