The world appears to have lost a capacity to judge truth from falsehood, and even scientists– once the defenders of objective truth and critical thinking– have become increasingly a community of defenders of “consensus”.
Looks awesome! Will definitely order soon or put on Christmas list. In regards to the content of the book and other works by Matt and Cynthia, can anyone recommend which works of Plato listed in the appendix to begin with?
My favorite starting point is: The Apology, then Crito and Phaedo... followed by Gorgias, Meno, Philebus, and thence Theatetus and Republic... but you can be flexible. Just don't start with Timeaus, and Republic like so many do as that requires a foundation in Plato's method before entering
According to my understanding, the root of the reduction of truth to sheer consensus was laid by Kant. As a consequence the reign of sheer commercialism could flower in its fatal unhindered ways.
A carrier of substances but not a reactor with substances.
Easiest way to retard science and medicine was to subvert the knowledge of water.
We live within the realm of water. Our atmosphere is water.
Air is the gaseous form of water. It takes the form of bubbles.
Water is the liquid form of water. Full bubbles or drops
Ice contain both drops and bubbles.
Every gas exists when it is carried inside bubbles of air.
Hence every gas contains water.
Stir water and water air escape.
Oceans generate air as their waves generate bubbles.
Plants do not make oxygen.
Oxygen and nitrogen are man-ufactured and exist only when contained. They are not components of the atmosphere.
I have an article titled
We breathe air not oxygen
I hope you read it.
The second article provides experimental evidence oxygen and nitrogen are the same gas. Nitrogen is differentiated with the addition of carbon particles to suppress combustion.
Both gases invented to solve metallurgical problems.
I have yet to read Science Unshackled. I added it to my top reading list.
I keep getting this idea that potential is simply downstream from organization and vice-versa; that organization is simply downstream from potential. Between each cycle a growth occurs, positive feedback reinforcing the next cycle.
You can echo this multiplier idea using instead the concept of anti-entropy, or amplification.
It’s essentially the same idea as growth by a series of qualitative changes, each of which unlocks some potential, which then leads to an increased rate of growth, which unlocks potential, on and on, to a point of saturation, then the whole game needs to be reinvented, or at least most of the time. The interesting part is the ratchet effect, where the good parts are kept, but while leaving room for further exploration. It seems a conservative balance in this would be crucial, otherwise all gains could be lost to untested enhancements failing, ending the whole thing, like a business bankruptcy, lol.
You arrive at the issue raised by Chuck Stevens, of how 1 + 1 can be greater than 2, or as Liebnitz wrote, the scholastics forgot that sometimes effects add, but other times they multiply!
There is arbitrary organization generally, but then a specific organization in a given context, yields orders of magnitude more results for the same problem, because its parts multiply more greatly than an arbitrary arrangement.
This science, whatever it is, is literally where the action is. Like a chain reaction, effects that multiply are a different thing than everything else under the wide search for fundamental knowledge.
The issue across all subjects and methods, is to identify the power multipliers in the noisy haystack of attributes.
Like how a fire or a tornado builds, power is centered on self-reinforcing phenomenon, and organization emphasis gets focused on that, speaking most broadly across all human agency and lines of development. Some call it feedback loops, oh, there’s the dreaded recursion issues Russel tried to avoid, but reality is recursive anyway so he was pushing a rope with his logical positivism.
I call it bootstrapping. As in, take what ya got, and build in stages from there, lawfully. Every successful entrepreneur knows this by practice, every scientist, every artist, all spheres. All life is based on bootstrapping.
This is the same general idea, as LaRouche’s theory of political economy based on Riemannian manifolds, or the Nooesphere, where the crucial parts like better education, multiply the total economic gain, not simply sum, like doing each other’s laundry and calling that economics, as Lyn used to say.
This theme of finding the multipliers, seems like the most universal theme to me, at least as a tool for regrounding all subjects in that particular context. The meta is what binds them all.
The question is how to bootstrap within the context of changing reality lawfully by finding and applying that which multiplies original action.
Now what comes to mind in this relation are the concepts of spacial coherence and temporal coherence. That harmonic relationships make for “harmony”, which is another word for amplification. The laser works because reflection gets all the atoms marching together in both time and space.
Resonance has been abused into an occult topic, but the shell of the idea still is interesting, perhaps the focus needs to be on coherence of parts rather than mere resonance.
Resonance, being simply one note or frequency, rejects change of the one note as the main operating principle, it’s tuned. It’s not enough. It gets more interesting when one considers it takes two to tango, a boundary (1) containing whatever is vibrating (2), making a system containing many overlapping relationships.
There is a lawful set of relations which permeates all reality, and the best we know is harmonic and anti-harmonic relations, in physical systems, social systems, and thinking systems. And they all coincide with each other and the mind.
Our best guess is we need to revisit these concepts and take them to a more meta-level of abstraction. To do this we use recursion and reflection. The result will be greater than the sum of the parts.
I plan on ordering a copy, is there an e-book version? That would be convenient.
I am well-versed in LaRouche’s view of cybernetics and AI, etc. Yet despite all the issues, especially with formalism and algorithms, there is a curious thing in a subset of AI called GANS, or generative adversarial networks, made famous recently as the core tech behind convincing deep-fake videos and voices.
Now looking beyond the stunning quality of these, one has to back up a step popping off with the usual LaRouchian critique, the intent as digital magic, or misleading imposter, however ironic that is, being a deep-fake engine after all.
The question is like the famous ad, “is it real or is it Memorex?” But which aspect, also, the output, or the innards, or the dance between them as not quite formal logic anymore, despite operating within a digital computer-substrate.
A couple questions arise, the huge data sets, and constant background housekeeping, are trending away from the “closed system” epistemological issue.
Another point is this engine’s output is aesthetic, very pleasing compositionally. That should raise some eyebrows.
And even if it’s copying and pasting with high granularity and balance of considerations based on some statistical map, when does imitation become so good that it doesn’t matter anymore?
Genuineness aside, LaRouche side says no, its limitations implicit to its formal, logical, cybernetic axiom-based-method, are why humans are creative and AI not.
But what if this question of method is no longer the formal-digital issue he well discredited, despite the model running on a digital computer? Short of the transfinite being corrupted because computers don’t do infinite place values, heh, that’s an issue, but besides that issue, computers running AI weight networks, are so abstracted away from digital substrate, they are essentially analog with limits. Is that enough to “evolve” creations? is it squaring the circle, or something more akin to a least-action pathway finder through multi-dimensional space, big R in math notation?
There is a foundation here that echoes all across your work. Brief explanation on the tech and its suspicious echo in Socratic Method.
The GAN works by having an imposter attempt to pass off the work in progress to an inspector, hence the name containing the word “adversarial”.
An inspector checks the progressive image or other work of an imposter, and the cycle repeats recursively, and as the cycles progress, both the imposter and the inspector get better at their respective jobs.
But GAN adds a twist: the imitator teaches the inspector what it missed, acting like a one-way learning ratchet. The imposter learns as well, so they bootstrap each other!
The upwards spiral of the improving image is based on a back-and-forth dialogue; they push off each other to raise a new creation.
Just that “pushing off each other echoes all across atoms, life and society, but there is more…
The Socratic dialogue! It’s so close to the same idea as a GAN, one has to step back and re-evaluate , is it the case that the most successful AI method, other than Transformers of Chat GPT fame, is imitating a Socratic dialogue at its core?
The juicy irony of the inner adversarial arrangement, raises the question, how is that different from what we are doing when we chase down truth using the Socratic method? Or life evolving somehow in the jungle, for that matter.
It would be very useful to automatically map the networks you study based on tracing ideas through history. A real-fake detector smells like just the ticket for idea evaluation. Ideas modeled as deep-conditional relations, not static objects. Perhaps a more apt application for automation that can discern ideas from another across works, and automatically catalog their web of historical pathways, to supercharge research. Not there yet, but I smell it, despite following LaRouche for decades.
The point though is the issue of adversarial back and forth as having more universal potential than even we LaRouche folks know about, and while dangerously treading on cybernetic ground, there is a background question on what produces creative works, and how it differs from sophisticated imitation methods.
One top dog, forget his name, said the same idea as Turing, that if you can’t tell it apart from human, then it might as well be human.
The deeper irony is the GAN engine took that method of a “test” and used it to evolve images to amazing heights of realism and artistic compositions, so perhaps we need to revisit the epistemological debate on this and related questions. Perhaps there is a mean, between the two extremes?
The question of imitation is obviously front and center on most of your works, how to tell the oligarch-idea-spawn and the misleading fake idea from the one based on natural law and principles, so it’s not a peripheral issue, it seems to be THE issue. Perhaps these overlap here in the AI GAN engine a little, and this is the reason why it is so good?
An important distinction in composition, is generating the parts in such a way that they are coherent with the whole.
Whats important distinction here, is that rather than the GAN imposter getting the raw correction, “the answer from the back of the book”, if I understand it correctly, instead it tunes its generative model, so that it naturally generates images with the new principles taken into account.
Now maybe that is not perfectly correct, but it’s not a cheat sheet either, it’s changing the analog statistical weights or analog values, not merely appending an exception to a long list of conditionals. It’s dynamical more than static, but this is a grey area for me, to be further researched. The difference is important.
People live in a soup of fake everything, and discernment seems to be key pivot for being able to survive and prosper, so how to empower discernment, yes.
There is a reason why gaslighting and manipulative myth-spawning works, it attacks one’s will and ability to discern fake from true.
It’s about protecting one’s mind via wisdom, but that’s just another word for life’s hard-gained powers of discernment and judgement, really.
Yes, false axioms lead to fallacies of composition, so yes we humans are on defense- we are forced to play the inspector role or filter role, to guard our mind with reason and common sense.
The similarities of this seemingly fundamental back-and-forth proposal and its subsequent evaluation, like a dialogue, seem to be the center of how progress gets made, both for mind and the Generative Adversarial Network.
Another deeper idea is that a dialogue closes cycles of thought, thus making it periodic like a sine wave or a nested composition. Principles of Harmony once again joins the chat. The change made by feedback is also hidden in plain sight, and we know feedback makes learning and correction possible.
Would love to see where this resolves. I have a suspicion that there is more there than meets the eye, as the GAN phenomenon is demonstrating convincing wholes that are greater than the sum of its parts, by having an internal competition of sorts.
And I would like to host you on my Fallacy and Idiocracy Podcast for the 2024 season.
My first episode will will be with Bob Young, Neil Young's brother and his book Mind Golf - the troubled genius of Moe Norman, and a perfect way to manifest impassioned visions for 2024.
I will be interviewing other authors /guests to educate us on the medical fallacies and germ theory myths, legal fallacies and how to take back your power.
Triste tider.. vi har et misantropisk lederskap. Heldigvis finnes det motkrefter.
"Where one current posits a living universe of creativity, law and design moving towards ever increasing states of perfectibility, and even assisted in this process by humankind, the other current of thought posits a universe shaped by death, decay and entropy, moving to ever increasing states of disorder, homogeneity."
Looks awesome! Will definitely order soon or put on Christmas list. In regards to the content of the book and other works by Matt and Cynthia, can anyone recommend which works of Plato listed in the appendix to begin with?
My favorite starting point is: The Apology, then Crito and Phaedo... followed by Gorgias, Meno, Philebus, and thence Theatetus and Republic... but you can be flexible. Just don't start with Timeaus, and Republic like so many do as that requires a foundation in Plato's method before entering
💕⭐️👍
👏👏👏👏👏
good on you, I fine book
According to my understanding, the root of the reduction of truth to sheer consensus was laid by Kant. As a consequence the reign of sheer commercialism could flower in its fatal unhindered ways.
Did you recover knowledge that water is not H2O?
Water is an element, inert hence it can cycle.
A carrier of substances but not a reactor with substances.
Easiest way to retard science and medicine was to subvert the knowledge of water.
We live within the realm of water. Our atmosphere is water.
Air is the gaseous form of water. It takes the form of bubbles.
Water is the liquid form of water. Full bubbles or drops
Ice contain both drops and bubbles.
Every gas exists when it is carried inside bubbles of air.
Hence every gas contains water.
Stir water and water air escape.
Oceans generate air as their waves generate bubbles.
Plants do not make oxygen.
Oxygen and nitrogen are man-ufactured and exist only when contained. They are not components of the atmosphere.
I have an article titled
We breathe air not oxygen
I hope you read it.
The second article provides experimental evidence oxygen and nitrogen are the same gas. Nitrogen is differentiated with the addition of carbon particles to suppress combustion.
Both gases invented to solve metallurgical problems.
I have yet to read Science Unshackled. I added it to my top reading list.
I keep getting this idea that potential is simply downstream from organization and vice-versa; that organization is simply downstream from potential. Between each cycle a growth occurs, positive feedback reinforcing the next cycle.
You can echo this multiplier idea using instead the concept of anti-entropy, or amplification.
It’s essentially the same idea as growth by a series of qualitative changes, each of which unlocks some potential, which then leads to an increased rate of growth, which unlocks potential, on and on, to a point of saturation, then the whole game needs to be reinvented, or at least most of the time. The interesting part is the ratchet effect, where the good parts are kept, but while leaving room for further exploration. It seems a conservative balance in this would be crucial, otherwise all gains could be lost to untested enhancements failing, ending the whole thing, like a business bankruptcy, lol.
You arrive at the issue raised by Chuck Stevens, of how 1 + 1 can be greater than 2, or as Liebnitz wrote, the scholastics forgot that sometimes effects add, but other times they multiply!
There is arbitrary organization generally, but then a specific organization in a given context, yields orders of magnitude more results for the same problem, because its parts multiply more greatly than an arbitrary arrangement.
This science, whatever it is, is literally where the action is. Like a chain reaction, effects that multiply are a different thing than everything else under the wide search for fundamental knowledge.
The issue across all subjects and methods, is to identify the power multipliers in the noisy haystack of attributes.
Like how a fire or a tornado builds, power is centered on self-reinforcing phenomenon, and organization emphasis gets focused on that, speaking most broadly across all human agency and lines of development. Some call it feedback loops, oh, there’s the dreaded recursion issues Russel tried to avoid, but reality is recursive anyway so he was pushing a rope with his logical positivism.
I call it bootstrapping. As in, take what ya got, and build in stages from there, lawfully. Every successful entrepreneur knows this by practice, every scientist, every artist, all spheres. All life is based on bootstrapping.
This is the same general idea, as LaRouche’s theory of political economy based on Riemannian manifolds, or the Nooesphere, where the crucial parts like better education, multiply the total economic gain, not simply sum, like doing each other’s laundry and calling that economics, as Lyn used to say.
This theme of finding the multipliers, seems like the most universal theme to me, at least as a tool for regrounding all subjects in that particular context. The meta is what binds them all.
The question is how to bootstrap within the context of changing reality lawfully by finding and applying that which multiplies original action.
Now what comes to mind in this relation are the concepts of spacial coherence and temporal coherence. That harmonic relationships make for “harmony”, which is another word for amplification. The laser works because reflection gets all the atoms marching together in both time and space.
Resonance has been abused into an occult topic, but the shell of the idea still is interesting, perhaps the focus needs to be on coherence of parts rather than mere resonance.
Resonance, being simply one note or frequency, rejects change of the one note as the main operating principle, it’s tuned. It’s not enough. It gets more interesting when one considers it takes two to tango, a boundary (1) containing whatever is vibrating (2), making a system containing many overlapping relationships.
There is a lawful set of relations which permeates all reality, and the best we know is harmonic and anti-harmonic relations, in physical systems, social systems, and thinking systems. And they all coincide with each other and the mind.
Our best guess is we need to revisit these concepts and take them to a more meta-level of abstraction. To do this we use recursion and reflection. The result will be greater than the sum of the parts.
I plan on ordering a copy, is there an e-book version? That would be convenient.
I am well-versed in LaRouche’s view of cybernetics and AI, etc. Yet despite all the issues, especially with formalism and algorithms, there is a curious thing in a subset of AI called GANS, or generative adversarial networks, made famous recently as the core tech behind convincing deep-fake videos and voices.
Now looking beyond the stunning quality of these, one has to back up a step popping off with the usual LaRouchian critique, the intent as digital magic, or misleading imposter, however ironic that is, being a deep-fake engine after all.
The question is like the famous ad, “is it real or is it Memorex?” But which aspect, also, the output, or the innards, or the dance between them as not quite formal logic anymore, despite operating within a digital computer-substrate.
A couple questions arise, the huge data sets, and constant background housekeeping, are trending away from the “closed system” epistemological issue.
Another point is this engine’s output is aesthetic, very pleasing compositionally. That should raise some eyebrows.
And even if it’s copying and pasting with high granularity and balance of considerations based on some statistical map, when does imitation become so good that it doesn’t matter anymore?
Genuineness aside, LaRouche side says no, its limitations implicit to its formal, logical, cybernetic axiom-based-method, are why humans are creative and AI not.
But what if this question of method is no longer the formal-digital issue he well discredited, despite the model running on a digital computer? Short of the transfinite being corrupted because computers don’t do infinite place values, heh, that’s an issue, but besides that issue, computers running AI weight networks, are so abstracted away from digital substrate, they are essentially analog with limits. Is that enough to “evolve” creations? is it squaring the circle, or something more akin to a least-action pathway finder through multi-dimensional space, big R in math notation?
There is a foundation here that echoes all across your work. Brief explanation on the tech and its suspicious echo in Socratic Method.
The GAN works by having an imposter attempt to pass off the work in progress to an inspector, hence the name containing the word “adversarial”.
An inspector checks the progressive image or other work of an imposter, and the cycle repeats recursively, and as the cycles progress, both the imposter and the inspector get better at their respective jobs.
But GAN adds a twist: the imitator teaches the inspector what it missed, acting like a one-way learning ratchet. The imposter learns as well, so they bootstrap each other!
The upwards spiral of the improving image is based on a back-and-forth dialogue; they push off each other to raise a new creation.
Just that “pushing off each other echoes all across atoms, life and society, but there is more…
The Socratic dialogue! It’s so close to the same idea as a GAN, one has to step back and re-evaluate , is it the case that the most successful AI method, other than Transformers of Chat GPT fame, is imitating a Socratic dialogue at its core?
The juicy irony of the inner adversarial arrangement, raises the question, how is that different from what we are doing when we chase down truth using the Socratic method? Or life evolving somehow in the jungle, for that matter.
It would be very useful to automatically map the networks you study based on tracing ideas through history. A real-fake detector smells like just the ticket for idea evaluation. Ideas modeled as deep-conditional relations, not static objects. Perhaps a more apt application for automation that can discern ideas from another across works, and automatically catalog their web of historical pathways, to supercharge research. Not there yet, but I smell it, despite following LaRouche for decades.
The point though is the issue of adversarial back and forth as having more universal potential than even we LaRouche folks know about, and while dangerously treading on cybernetic ground, there is a background question on what produces creative works, and how it differs from sophisticated imitation methods.
One top dog, forget his name, said the same idea as Turing, that if you can’t tell it apart from human, then it might as well be human.
The deeper irony is the GAN engine took that method of a “test” and used it to evolve images to amazing heights of realism and artistic compositions, so perhaps we need to revisit the epistemological debate on this and related questions. Perhaps there is a mean, between the two extremes?
The question of imitation is obviously front and center on most of your works, how to tell the oligarch-idea-spawn and the misleading fake idea from the one based on natural law and principles, so it’s not a peripheral issue, it seems to be THE issue. Perhaps these overlap here in the AI GAN engine a little, and this is the reason why it is so good?
An important distinction in composition, is generating the parts in such a way that they are coherent with the whole.
Whats important distinction here, is that rather than the GAN imposter getting the raw correction, “the answer from the back of the book”, if I understand it correctly, instead it tunes its generative model, so that it naturally generates images with the new principles taken into account.
Now maybe that is not perfectly correct, but it’s not a cheat sheet either, it’s changing the analog statistical weights or analog values, not merely appending an exception to a long list of conditionals. It’s dynamical more than static, but this is a grey area for me, to be further researched. The difference is important.
People live in a soup of fake everything, and discernment seems to be key pivot for being able to survive and prosper, so how to empower discernment, yes.
There is a reason why gaslighting and manipulative myth-spawning works, it attacks one’s will and ability to discern fake from true.
It’s about protecting one’s mind via wisdom, but that’s just another word for life’s hard-gained powers of discernment and judgement, really.
Yes, false axioms lead to fallacies of composition, so yes we humans are on defense- we are forced to play the inspector role or filter role, to guard our mind with reason and common sense.
The similarities of this seemingly fundamental back-and-forth proposal and its subsequent evaluation, like a dialogue, seem to be the center of how progress gets made, both for mind and the Generative Adversarial Network.
Another deeper idea is that a dialogue closes cycles of thought, thus making it periodic like a sine wave or a nested composition. Principles of Harmony once again joins the chat. The change made by feedback is also hidden in plain sight, and we know feedback makes learning and correction possible.
Would love to see where this resolves. I have a suspicion that there is more there than meets the eye, as the GAN phenomenon is demonstrating convincing wholes that are greater than the sum of its parts, by having an internal competition of sorts.
I’d like to read this. Do you consider the case of the Russian Constructivists?
It says here https://react19.org/for-patients/patient-resources-education/how-to-guides/how-to-read-and-understand-research " A study was conducted recently, and the conclusion was drawn that those eating a single apple a day were less likely to see doctor when followed over a period of 1 year. Now based solely on reading the conclusion, some may simply accept this as fact and rush out to eat an apple a day."
How many people still believe the consensus liars tday now we know https://democracymanifest.substack.com
Your work is phenominal Mathew. when it comes to today's science, i have found this website useful https://react19.org/for-patients/patient-resources-education/how-to-guides/how-to-read-and-understand-research
@matthew ehret well done. but you fail to mention the harmful impacts of chemicals, toxins, emf's and more on our biologies and fertility rates.
Well done. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for putting this together for us Mathew.
And I would like to host you on my Fallacy and Idiocracy Podcast for the 2024 season.
My first episode will will be with Bob Young, Neil Young's brother and his book Mind Golf - the troubled genius of Moe Norman, and a perfect way to manifest impassioned visions for 2024.
I will be interviewing other authors /guests to educate us on the medical fallacies and germ theory myths, legal fallacies and how to take back your power.
I just realized that I never replied to this. Sure we can do something on your podcast. send me an email canadianpatriot1776@tutanota.com
Death , decay , disorder is what the normal newspaper offers. News for a Death Culture.
The Human social nature to worry is satisfied?
Nothing to do with science here this pervasive Death Culture or thought as it’s assumed to be as ascribed by Plato.
All we have are their translated words without a living context.
Mexico celebrates Death in a festival which one doesn’t think of as a reason portraying classic thought.
Glad your looking at how precious life has been ignored however.
Triste tider.. vi har et misantropisk lederskap. Heldigvis finnes det motkrefter.
"Where one current posits a living universe of creativity, law and design moving towards ever increasing states of perfectibility, and even assisted in this process by humankind, the other current of thought posits a universe shaped by death, decay and entropy, moving to ever increasing states of disorder, homogeneity."
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthewehret/p/my-new-book-has-now-hit-the-press?r=p0tzp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web