New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
PressTV
July 12, 2013
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
[h/t: GeoEngineering Watch]
Robots to Breed with Each Other and Humans by 2045
image source: http://tinyurl.com/lb8zjo7
Cybernetics experts say it’s possible for robots to breed with each other, and with humans, by 2045.
by Nicholas West
Activist Post
Jan 23, 2014
The magical transhumanist date of 2045 holds many predictions for how man will attain his final merger with computer systems and usher in an age of “spiritual” machines. Ray Kurzweil has issued a bevy of likely scenarios in his book The Singularity is Near, and continues to suggest that much of those predictions could arrive much sooner. Others have pointed strictly to the economic impact and have marked 2045 has the date when humans could be completely outsourced to robotic workers.
Now cybernetic experts are pointing to the trends in robotics, artificial intelligence, and 3D printing to suggest that the “merger” could go beyond the establishment of an era of cyborgs and into a very literal one: sex with robots.
There has been an ongoing move to create humanoid robots that can more than simply mimic human ability and behavior. Attention is being paid to the social aspect as well. But what is now being proposed has even more serious ethical and existential implications, and very well could bring about the concept of a true “master race.”
The other day there was the announcement that researchers are developing a “Wikipedia for Robots” that enables robots to learn from a cloud-based Internet sharing system … designed only for them. When this concept fully takes shape, it will resemble a social structure that is decidedly human – our ability to learn from one another in order to become more efficient and intelligent.
This advance toward not only autonomous decision making for robots, but a type of autonomous evolution must make us question the next step: what happens if this experiment takes on a life of its own?
George Zarkadakis is an artificial intelligence engineer who believes that robots will move toward procreation rather quickly as they will wish to produce superior offspring. With the rapid advances made in the realm of 3D printing, they would likely begin by printing out their progeny, or perhaps would breed at the molecular level through their silicon and carbon make-up. Others experts such as Professor Noel Sharkey from England’s Sheffield University point to the same concept as the “Wikipedia for Robots” – through a simple software swap, new intelligence could be created, as well as the likelihood of other upgrades like virus protection. Incidentally, the organic component of this is also being researched by geneticists as downloadable DNA via our own human Internet.
This all does begin to sound quite human, as we naturally wish that our own children become healthier, more intelligent and longer-lived versions of ourselves. But if these human “desires” manifesting among robots doesn’t seem worrisome enough, then what about robot sex with humans? It can’t be dismissed outright.
There is a parallel ongoing mission to further develop an emotional connection between robots and humans. For example, how many of us feel that our computational devices are now integral to our social lives and work? I would be dishonest to say that the computer on which I’m typing these words and communicating with other individuals is not an essential part of my life … and I love having that ability. However, what about real love? The love we have toward family, friends, and the intimacy with partners or spouses? This is where the slope begins to get slippery.
As robots begin to take on an increasing range of human functions, their humanoid (as opposed to only computational) forms are becoming more present in our lives. This is beginning in the area of caregiving in hospitals and particularly with the elderly, as researchers suggest that a “greying population” will need the extra support. We also see robots entering the following “intimate” areas:
- Housesitting: (Source)
- Butlers: (Video)
- Restaurant service (Source)
- Nursing care: (Video)
- Companionship and Assistance: for pets and people
- Personal Entertainment and Companionship: See ASIMO, and Romeo.
- Teaching (Source)
A recent study conducted by German researchers from the International Communication Association also made some revealing discoveries within a group of participants that hint at humans’ theoretical fondness for robots.
One study had 14 participants watch videos that showed a human, a robot and an inanimate object, being treated in either an affectionate or in a violent way. Researchers found that people displayed similar neural activation patterns for affection across the spectrum, indicating the potential for an empathetic reaction toward a non-human. It becomes interesting to note, then, when we return to the vocation list above that the areas most often cited for human replacement in favor of robotic “assistance” are the very vocations that would seem to require the most empathy.
So then we take it one step further. Would humans really want to have sex with robots and, if so, would they be willing to create a hybrid species? If we go beyond the merely prurient area of mechanical sex devices, and look at the possibility for a genuine emotional relationship, it seems that such an interest is developing. Here is one philosophical interpretation of how this interest could manifest toward the final stage:
Robots won’t merely attenuate the need for human intimacy and thus the use of love for instrumental purposes. They also seem to have attractions as companions in their own right. So far the most sophisticated social robots are those developed to ease the loneliness of the elderly . . . At least some people find these companion robots more attractive than humans: they are more straightforward to relate to and less demanding than ordinary ornery humans. But it seems to me that even in the most intimate sphere, and for mentally and physically healthy individuals in the prime of life, robots may eventually become more attractive than humans as companions.
. . . I think the key innovation of robot lovers will be in pretending. Specifically, robots will be designed so as to allow their human owners to pretend that they are loved. And everyone wants to be loved.
Physically, this would require robots to look enough like a person (not even a very perfect replica) for humans to relate to. Cognitively – or rather “algorithmically” – this would require robots to simulate the perfect lover – that is, the perfect worshipper. This lover asks you about your day in a voice that suggests they actually want to hear about it. It agrees with you about what a bitch your boss is, and remembers that mean thing she did last year too! It remembers your birthday, but also all the things you like and don’t like. It cooks wonderful things, and doesn’t complain when you get fat. It never has a headache. And so on. Basically, it’s a Stepford wife. (Source)
Whether or not this is a sad commentary about one person’s take on what meaningful connection entails, this type of interest does not (yet) appear to have the widespread acceptance that it would take to become reality – in a physical or social sense.
But, as noted by Professor Kevin Warwick from the Institution of Engineering and Technology in an interview with MailOnline,
‘just about anything is possible’ and . . . there are already robots with biological brains that mix biological and technological parts.
‘This is not science fiction,’ he said.
He believes that robots capable of breeding with each other could be produced using current research and technologies but it will likely take 20 to 30 years before they could be used on Earth – and there are questions to be asked about whether this is a good idea.
[…]
research into creating cyborgs as a result of ‘breeding’ with robots, and creating robots that breed with each other, depends on social acceptance, Professor Warwick said.
‘Over the next 20 to 30 years the question will be on the table and we have to face ethical issues.’
Nevertheless, before this final stage of acceptance, robots will presumably have been breeding with one another first and quickly evolving. The possible outcome of what that collective evolution will bring is, frighteningly, anybody’s guess. The above scenario discussed by these experts does, after all, presume that the production of a hybrid species between humans and robots will be a consensual decision.
Main source article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2543882/Could-robots-SEX-Experts-believe-machines-reproduce-humans-30-years.html
Additional sources and research into robot romance and how it is being examined in popular media. Please add your own in the comment section.
- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/31/can-robots-fall-in-love-and-why-would-they.html
- http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/marginal-utility/dating-robots/
- http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Column+could+fall+love+with+robots/9373448/story.html
Recently from Nicholas West:
- Robots to Get Internet Cloud Brain: “Wikipedia For Robots”
- Amazon Patents The Use Of Predictive Behavior Technology For Future Shipments
- Facebook Game Predicts Mind Controlled Smart Homes
- Google to Introduce Smart Contact Lenses: The Era Of Cyborgs Has Begun
- Google Validates Putting Robotic Intelligence in Every Home
VIDEO — Americans Drink “Fukushima Bottled Water Imported From Japan” That’s Marked “Radioactive”
Mark Dice
Jan 20, 2014
Political prankster Mark Dice offers people cold bottles of “Fukushima Imported Mineral Water” that are clearly marked with a large radiation symbol he glued on the bottles to see if anyone would drink it without realizing the significance of the name “Fukushima” or realizing the bottles were marked “radioactive.” Shot in San Diego, California.
Subscribe to http://www.YouTube.com/MarkDice
http://www.Facebook.com/MarkDice
http://www.Twitter.com/MarkDice
RADIO SHOW — Mark Passio interviews Jan Irvin on the Trivium – with Bob Tuskin
Trivium Education.com
January 23, 2012
What on Earth is Happening, episode #087.
Date: 2011-12-04
Guests: Jan Irvin (GnosticMedia.com & TriviumEducation.com) and Bob Tuskin (BobTuskin.com)
Topics: Trivium, Quadrivium, Logical Fallacies, Truth, Education, Wisdom, Solutions
http://whatonearthishappening.com/
The virtual society is being built: refining the Matrix
image source: http://www.verderosu.ro/index.php?section=about
by Job Rappoport
Activist Post
Jan 14, 2014
Research on simulating the human brain is marching forward. Corporations are attempting to build devices that talk to their users in a “realistic” fashion.
These computers would continuously update profiles of their owners, seeking to read their emotional states and preferences and respond to them.
The old phrase, “the machine age,” takes on new meaning. Sellers are betting that consumers want machines that understand them. This bet has a corollary: human to human interaction is just too complicated and unpredictable.
Instead, machines can be programmed to reflect their users. Narcissism wins.
“I’m your machine. I’m not here to criticize you or challenge you. I’m here to be like you and serve your needs. I’m here to talk to you in ways you understand and appreciate.”
This is a far cry from the robotic telephone operator who puts you on hold for 20 minutes. This is friendship. This is happiness.
There’s one major stumbling block. The emotional range of an alive and alert human is too wide, too subtle, and too varied to embed in a machine that is supposed to stand in as a friend and companion.
The response to that problem is: reduce the range of the human user.
This campaign has been underway for some time. Watch movies, watch television shows and video games, listen to popular music, listen to politicians. It’s all about reduction. Simplification. Lowest common denominators.
Observe the slogans of social movements. If you have the stomach for it, go into a public school and watch what teachers are doing to your children.
Check out New Age-type spiritual movements. Notice how they tend to sell oversimplified slogans and encourage focusing on empty generalizations.
You see, the individual is too complex for this new machine age. His range of feeling and thought must be diminished.
Eventually, he’ll interact with a sophisticated talking computer and feel right at home. He’ll believe his emotions are being mirrored and appreciated.
Reduction. Never proliferation.
If you’ve ever studied infomercials, you know the whole business is based on back-end sales. It’s not the product you buy for $19.95, it’s the products they can hook you into after you spend the $19.95.
So it is with Google Glass. It’s all about the apps that’ll be attached.
Glass gives the wearer short-hand reality as he taps in. That’s what it’s for. The user is “on the go.” If he’s driving his Lexus and suddenly thinks about Plato, he’s not going to download the full text of The Republic to mull while he’s crashing into big trucks on the Jersey Turnpike. He’s going to take a shorthand summary. A few lines.
People want boiled-down info while they’re on the move. Reduction. The “essentials.”
This is perfectly in line with the codes of the culture. Ads, quick-hitter seminars, headlines, two-sentence summaries, ratings for products, news with no context. Stripped-down.
Well, here is a look into right now. A student at Stanford is developing a Google app that “reads other people.”
From SFGate, 8/26/13, “Google Glass being designed to read emotions”: “The [emotion-recognition] tools can analyze facial expressions and vocal patterns for signs of specific emotions: Happiness, sadness, anger, frustration, and more.”
This is the work of Catalin Voss, an 18-year-old student at Stanford and his start-up company, Sension.
So you’re wearing Google Glass at a meeting and it checks out the guy across the table who has an empty expression on his mug and, above your right eye, you see the word “neutral.” Now he smiles, and the word “happy” appears.
This information is supposed to guide you in your communication. The number of things that can go wrong? Count the ways, if you’re able. I’m personally looking forward to that guy across the table saying, “Hey, you, schmuck with the Glass, what is your app saying about me now? Angry?” That should certainly enhance the communication.
Or a husband, just back from his 12-mile morning bike ride, enters his Palo Alto home, wearing Glass, of course, and as he looks at his wife, who is sitting at the kitchen table reading a book, he sees the word “sad” appear above his eye. “Honey,” he says, recalling the skills he picked up in a 26-minute webinar, “have you been pursuing a negative line of thinking?”
She slowly gazes up at the goggle-eyed monster in his spandex and grasshopper helmet, rises from her chair and tosses a plate of hot eggs in his face. YouTube, please!
But wait. There’s more. The Glass app is also being heralded as a step forward in “machine-human relationships.” With recognition services like Google Now and Siri, when computers and human users talk to each other, the computers will be able to respond not only to the content of the user’s words, but also to his tone, his feelings.
This should be a real marvel. The emotion-recognition tool is all about reduction. It shrinks human feelings to simplistic labels. Therefore, what machines say back to humans will be something to behold.
Machine version of NLP, anyone?
The astonishing thing about this new app is that many tech people are so on-board with it. In other words, they believe that human feelings can be broken down and worked with on an androidal basis, with no loss incurred. These people are already boiled down, cartoonized.
You think you’ve observed predictive programing in movies? That’s nothing. The use of apps like this one will help bring about a greater willingness on the part of humans to reduce their own thoughts and feelings to…FIT THE SPECS OF THE MACHINES AND THE SOFTWARE.
Count on it.
This isn’t really about machines acting more like humans. It’s about humans acting like machines.
The potential range of human emotions is extraordinary. Our language, when used with imagination, actually extends that range. It’s something called art.
No matter how subtle the machines and their emotion-recognition algorithms become, there will always be a wide, wide gap between what they produce and the expression of humans.
The most profound kind of mind control seeks to eliminate that gap by encouraging us to mimic technology. That means people will think and feel less, and what they think and feel will mean less.
The machines won’t say, “I’m sorry, I can’t identify that emotion, it’s too complex.” They’ll say “sad” or “happy” or “upset” or whatever they have to say to give the appearance that they’re on top of the human condition.
Eventually, significant numbers of people will tailor their self-awareness to what the machines point to, name, label, declare.
Thus, inventing reality.
The wolf becomes a lamb, the lamb becomes a flea.
And peace prevails. You can wear it and see with it.
Eventually, realizing that Glass is too obvious and obnoxious and bulky, companies will develop something they might call Third Eye, a chip the size of half a grain of rice, made flat, and inserted under the skin of the forehead.
Perfect. Invisible. Of course, cops will have them. And talk to them.
“I’m parked at the corner of Wilshire and Westwood. Suspicious male standing outside the Harmon Building.”
“I see him. Searching relevant data.”
Which means any past arrests, race, conditions noted in his medical records, tax status, questionable statements he’s made in public or private, significant known associates, group affiliations, etc. And present state of mind.
The cop: “Recommendation?”
“Passive-aggressive, right now he’s peaking at 3.2 on the Hoover Bipolar scale. Bring subject into custody for general questioning.”
“Will do.”
No one will wonder why, because such analysis resonates with the vastly reduced general perception of what reality is all about.
People mimic how machines see them and adjust their human thinking accordingly.
Hand and glove, key and lock. Wonderful.
As the cop is transporting the suspect to the station, Third Eye intercedes: “Sorry, Officer Crane, it took me a minute to dig further. Suspect is an important business associate of (REDACTED). This is a catch and release. Repeat, catch and release. Printing out four backstage passes to Third Memorial Rolling Stones concert at the Hollywood Bowl. Apologize profusely, give subject the tickets, and release him immediately.”
“I copy.”
“This arrest and attendant communication is being deleted…now.”
Here is another long-term trend that’s conspired to produce humans who want to interact with machines in a virtual world: child-entitlement.
Give a child what he wants when he wants it. Every time. Become a slave to your child’s immediate needs. (And when you’re exhausted from that routine, just set him up in front of the television set, where he can experience fast-cutting shows that entrain his brain to accept a shortened attention span. More reduction.)
It’s easy. And 30 years from now, a child won’t even want his parents, because his companion, friend, and guide, his personal machine, a little cube he carries around with him, will understand him so much better.
“Good morning, Jimmy. It’s me again, your friend Oz. How are you feeling? Happy, sad? Let me do a quick scan. I see you’re a little sad…”
Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
[Potent News editor’s note: I heard this article via a text-to-speech app on my smartphone which I finally had a chance to download today… and I must admit that hearing that app say these words in that robotic and semi-realistic way made this whole issue that much more more vivid and creepy while underscoring the importance of aligning oneself with the truth and Natural Law. ;)]
Trust in governments worldwide failing
Trust in elected leaders has fallen sharply, a global survey revealed Monday, citing the protracted budget battle in Washington that nearly saw the U.S. default on its debts and Europe’s stuttering response to its debt crisis as key reasons for the drop.
Ahead of the gathering of political and business leaders in the Swiss resort of Davos, the public relations firm Edelman found that only 44 per cent of university-educated people participating in the survey trusted government, down 4 percentage points from the previous year. As recently as 2011, trust in politicians stood at 52 per cent.
The 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer found the largest-ever gap in its 14-year history — 14 points — between trust in government and trust in business.
“This is a profound evolution in the landscape of trust from 2009, where business had to partner with government to regain trust,” agency CEO Richard Edelman said.
The U.S. saw a dramatic 16 percentage point fall in the level of political trust to 37 per cent, which Edelman attributed to a number of factors, including the debt ceiling standoff in Congress, the revelations of widespread snooping by the National Security Agency and the calamitous start of President Barack Obama’s health reform website.
In Europe, the numbers were similarly dispiriting for elected leaders.
One country that saw plunging trust in government was France, where there’s growing concern over the inability of President Francois Hollande’s government to get the economy going. According to the survey, only 32 per cent in France trust government, down 17 percentage points.
The online survey queried 27,000 people in 27 countries, and broke down results between the general population and a smaller sample of university-educated people. It was conducted last year between Oct. 16 and Nov. 29.
[h/t: James Corbett]
VIDEO — Healing with the A=432Hz Music Coil – 3rd Degree Burn – AMAZING!!
Jamie Buturff
Aug 2, 2011
Testimony from John Fiala, chief engineer for Tesla Tech, experienced a third degree burn from a practice mortar round during a demonstration on October 9, 2010. The surgeon on site told John that he would need 3-4 skin graphs over a period of 1-1/2 – 2 years before skin would grow back in the effected area. Using a Rodin type coil and the 512Hz, 256Hz, and the 432Hz (The notes of C – Heart chakra and A – Crown chakra) John had skin growth in 32 days with no surgery or skin graphs!!
To purchase the full presentation of Marko Rodin and Jamie Buturff at Tesla Tech 2011 visit http://www.teslatech.info
PN 