Tag Archives: science

New study: ‘Stupidity is Contagious’

Some very interesting findings have come from a new study:

Researchers at the Institute for Cognitive Decay claim stupidity spreads “at rates comparable to the common cold, but with longer-lasting effects.”
Dr. Helen Tropp, lead researcher:
“It turns out stupidity is highly contagious, especially when transmitted through phrases like ‘I did my own research’ or ‘That’s just your opinion.’”
Study participants who spent just 10 minutes in a room with someone spouting conspiracy theories lost an average of 12 IQ points, some “permanently.”
Exposure is not limited to in-person contact: scrolling through the ‘For you’ section of X (Twitter) carries “a 73% risk of infection.”
In rural test sites, researchers noticed “stupidity clusters” forming, which they compared to “wildfires fueled by bad takes, energy drinks, and supplements promoted on ‘Bro Culture’ podcasts.”
One experimental group was forced to binge-watch reality TV marathons—nearly half had lowered basic math test results afterward, and 12% struggled to write in complete sentences when asked to summarize episodes in a paragraph.
Professor Alan Greaves, epidemiologist:
“We tried developing a stupidity vaccine, but test subjects refused it, saying they ‘don’t believe in science.’ At that point, we gave up.”

And if these ‘research based’ bullet points weren’t enough ‘evidence’, let me be explicit in saying these were all Chat GPT inspired, following a response to my request for them stating, “Here’s a bundle of fake “facts,” bogus statistics, and ridiculous quotes you can mix into your parody piece.” I tweaked them a little, but none of them were my ideas.

Stupidity travels at the speed of laziness.

Stupidity isn’t contagious, lazy thinking is. We no longer live in a world where information can be taken at face value without some level of fact checking. Our bullshit detectors need to be left in the ‘on’ position. And we need to be sceptical of evidence, be that evidence in favour of or against what we believe.

It can be a quote, an AI generated video, or even a person of influence that you have followed and admired, but who was equally duped (or lazy) in their gathering of information… Misinformation, fake “facts”, and downright intentional falsified data is everywhere these days, and if we are lazy with our diligence, it’s easy to contribute to the spread of information and lies.

So while this study was made up, it seems to me that if we are lazy in the way we consume (and share information), as many people seem to be, this really is leading to the spread of stupidity.

Consciousness and Free Will

I just finished listening Annaka Harris’ audio documentary, ‘Lights On: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe’. I’ve also listened to her and moreso her husband, Sam Harris, talk about Free Will – or rather that we lack free will. On these concepts I consider this couple two of the brightest minds. They have researched these topics far more than me and their depth of knowledge and understanding far surpasses mine. I look to them for anything they share on these subjects and admire the scope of what they know and understand on the topics. And yet I disagree a fair bit with their conclusions.

I’m not going to detail my thinking completely here. Rather I’m going to do a bit of a mind dump and hopefully expand on my thoughts later. I just feel that these two topics belong together and I often think of how they are connected. I’ll also share some links to the things I’ve already written on the topics.

1. I don’t think consciousness is fundamental.

I think it is emergent. Consciousness is on a spectrum, but life is an essential necessity before consciousness. If life must come first, consciousness is not fundamental. So a rock does not have consciousness, but the simplest amoeba does. Every living thing has some level of consciousness. However, there is a minimal basic consciousness related to ‘the lights being turned on’. We can argue about where this point is, and while I favour the idea of self-awareness being the ‘lights on’ moment, I think even the idea of what it means to be self-aware is debatable and that a human definition automatically biases greater intelligence than I think is required for an organism to be self-aware.

2. Consciousness comes from an excess of processing time.

“…life requires consciousness, and it starts with the desire to reproduce. From there, consciousness coincidentally builds with an organism’s complexity and boredom, or idle processing time, when brains do not have to worry about basic survival. Our consciousness is created by the number of connections in our brains, and the amount of freedom we have to think beyond our basic survival.” And from the link in #1, above, “It’s sort of like the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy pyramid must be met, (psychological and safety) AND there then needs to be extra, unnecessary processing time, idle time that the processor then uses for what I’m calling desires… interests beyond basic needs.”

3. In this way, free will starts early. The early decision-making might be as simple as moving towards more nutritious food, but somewhere in the development of brains choices move more towards desires… choosing to move towards something we like/desire, not just something better for the organism. The fact that we do not just operate in a way that best serves survival to me is one of the strongest arguments for free will. Free will is ubiquitous in nature. Animals show higher order consciousness and make choices that show value for other life and do not make sense in a universe without free will.

4. Free will is on a bell curve.

Our hardware and software are imperfect, and our beliefs, our morals, our desires, our wants and wishes are all fed through imperfect systems influenced by outside sources. As a simple example, we know that being hungry can affect our disposition as well as our decision-making. These ‘outside’ influences can be very strong and can keep us low on the free will bell curve, while other choices we make might be a lot freer on the free will bell curve. Hardware issues like our gut biome or a tumour as examples can limit our free will, as can software issues like the brainwashing of beliefs or the societies we live in, which can and do reduce our free will. But as significant as these influences can be, they do not negate free will.

5. We truly don’t understand consciousness and free will because of our inability to understand the unconscious mind. However, this hardware issue gives us hints.

I’ll start by saying we do ourselves a disservice when we separate our conscious and unconscious minds. This is a hardware issue that gets in our way and our software does not have a way around it. The argument that we can ask a person a question while they have sensors on their brain and we can figure out what their answer is before they consciously do is a poor argument that we don’t have choice or that we don’t have free will… Even if our conscious mind makes up after-the-fact reasons for the decision. The reality is that we are of one mind, and our conscious mind not knowing what our unconscious mind knows at the same time is not the separation we think it is. It’s simply that we have poor hardware that makes us think these are two separate minds.

Glimpses of the unconscious, for example with the use of psychedelic drugs, show us extremely metaphoric imagery and not a doorway to logical processes. This might not seem to be a good argument, but I think it’s better than thinking of us as having two minds, the unconscious with no free will and the conscious with just an illusion of free will. If consciousness is built from idle processing time, the idea that organisms start to make any choices at all that veer away from survival inherently suggests that there is choice and so there is free will.

All this said, and despite thinking we have free will, I really don’t think it’s all that free. I think our basic survival needs, the desire for sustenance, the desire to procreate, the desire to protect our family, the desire for community and attention, these all limit the freeness of our free will. Then there is also the limits of our hardware and software, the influences of other organisms on our bodies… these all flatten the curve of free will to the point that we spend most of our lives not really having much choice… But limited choice and highly influenced choice is still not no choice, and so there is free will even if it’s not completely free.

Consciousness and AI

I have a theory about consciousness being on a spectrum. That itself isn’t anything new but I think the factors that play into consciousness are: Basic needs, computational ‘processing’, and idleness. Consciousness comes from having more processing time than needed to meet basic needs, along with the inability for processing (early thinking) to be idle, and so for lack of a better word desires are created.

Think of a very simple organism when all of its needs are met. This isn’t a real thought process I’m going to share but rather a meta look at this simple organism: “I have enough heat, light, and food, what should I do with myself?”

Seek better food
Move closer to the heat or light source
Try different food
Join another organism that can help me
Find efficiencies
Find easier ways to move
Hunt

At first, these are not conscious decisions, they are only a choice of simple processes. But eventually, the desires grow. Think decisions that start like, “If I store more energy I can survive longer in times of famine.” And evolve to more of a desire not just for survival but for pleasure (for lack of a better word): “I like this food more than other kinds and want more of it.” …All stemming from having idle processing/thinking time.

I don’t know when ‘the lights turn on‘, when an organism moves from running basic decisions of survival to wanting and desiring things, and being conscious? I believe consciousness is on a spectrum and it is idle processing/thinking time that eventually gets an organism to sentience. It’s sort of like the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy pyramid must be met, (psychological and safety) AND there then needs to be extra, unnecessary processing time, idle time that the processor then uses for what I’m calling desires… interests beyond basic needs.

Our brains are answer-making machines. We ask a question and it answers, whether we want it to or not. If I say what does a purple elephant with yellow polkadots look like? You will inevitably think of what that looks like simply from reading the question. I think that is what happens at a very fundamental level of consciousness. When all needs are met the processors in the brain don’t suddenly stop and sit idle. Instead, the questions arise, “How do I get more food?”, “Where would be better for me to move to?” Eventually all needs are met, but the questions keep coming. At first based on simple desires, but more and more complex over generations and eons of time.

So why did I title this, ‘Consciousness and AI’? I think one of the missing ingredients in developing Artificial General (or Super) intelligence is that we are just giving AI’s tasks to complete and process at faster and faster times, and when the processing of these tasks are completed, the AI sits idle. An AI has no built in desire that an organic organism has to use that idle time to ask questions, to want something beyond completing the ‘basic needs’ tasks it is asked to do.

If we figure out a way to make AI curious, to have it desire to learn more, and to not let itself be idle, at that point it will be a very short path to AI being a lot smarter than us.

—

I’m currently listening to Annaka Harris’ audio book ‘LIGHTS ON: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe’ on Audible, and that’s inspiring a lot of my thinking. That said, this post is me rehashing an idea that I had back in December 2019, when I wrote, ‘What does in mean to be conscious?’… I go into this idea of idle time further in that post:

My conclusions in that post focused more on animal life, but listening to Annaka’s documentary of interviews with scientists I’m realizing that I really do think there is some level of consciousness right down to the simplest life forms. If it’s idle time and desires that bring about sentience, then figuring out how to make AI’s naturally curious will be the path to artificial general intelligence… Because they are already at a place where they have unused processing time, which is continuing to grow exponentially fast.

What it means to be literate?

Can you read? Can you do basic math? Is that enough?

The critical thinking required to make sense of the world today is ever increasing. We have a world leader using magical math to make a trade deficit calculation into a reciprocal tariff calculation, and claiming that this is, “Kind reciprocal, not full reciprocal.”

What? Help me make it make sense?

Meanwhile, I saw a video that someone created using AI. He uploaded a pdf article for two AI‘s to discuss, one of the AI’s was a version of himself, with his voice, and the other was a female at a desk. The only thing that suggested to me that the conversation was between two AI’s was some awkward hand gestures. Take those movements away, or make them a bit more natural/realistic and I would have no idea that I was watching an AI conversation.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, there are some wild claims about structures under the great pyramids, and while the evidence is unclear, I’ve seen many videos explaining these not-yet-proven structures. These claims include that they are a network of power sources connected to other structures around the world, and another theory claiming that aliens created them.

And speaking of aliens, wasn’t it just a few short months ago that we ‘discovered’ aliens living in our oceans? What ever happened to that story?

It’s becoming almost impossible to be informationally literate today. By the time you have time to seriously fact check something the story is already old, and there are new crazy claims that require your skeptical attention. What’s the source of this information? Where did they get their data from? What’s the bias of the news source? How is this data being manipulated? Who paid for the study? Is this a real quote? Is this video real, or CGI, or AI?

Who is fact checking the fact checkers? Meanwhile, here in Canada, a fact checker hired by one of our news stations was let go because trolls that don’t like their favourite political party being fact checked brought so much negative attention to her that the news station let her go.

What? Help me make it make sense?

The reality is that reading and writing and doing basic math is not enough to be functionally and informationally literate today. The critical thinking required to simply consume the information being thrown at us is overly demanding. I think the way forward for the short term is to find trusted sources and rely on them… and yet that’s the very thing that has seemed to get us into trouble. How many people get their news from just one or two biased sources? I’m literally now suggesting to find an echo chamber to sit in… hopefully you can find one that echoes facts, common sense, and some semblance of the truth.

The Light Source

I’ve just started listening to Annaka Harris’ new audio documentary, LIGHTS ON: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe.

I find it incredible that the mind is one of the 3 deep unknowns we know so little about: deep oceans, deep space, and deep minds. All these years of scientific discovery and we still really don’t know how consciousness works; what turns the lights on; what makes this group of biologically animated atoms conscious and self aware?

We can’t point to a part of our anatomy and say, ‘this is what makes us conscious’, or ‘this is the spot that makes us know that we are human, that gives us subjective experience’. Will we ever really know? We are still discovering new species of animals in the depths of the ocean. The James Webb telescope is making us question what we know about the origins of the universe, in these areas there are new groundbreaking discoveries all the time… And still we seem to be stuck questioning what makes us conscious, with relatively little new information updating what we can say for certain.

One area that seems to suggest new insights is in split brain studies where people have damage to different areas of the brain or have the left/right brain connection severed. But to me this says more about our hardware than our software. In an oversimplified metaphor, if you have a wiring issue in your house and a light switch no longer works, that doesn’t give you more information about how electricity works. This really doesn’t give us more information about why the lights were on in the first place.

I think it’s fascinating that Annaka chose to question both philosophers and scientists including physicists like Sara Imari Walker, in her quest to understand consciousness. This won’t be an easy listen. I think this is an audio book that will require more time than the length of the book because I’ll need to rewind and re-listen to parts of it. Still, I’m looking forward to learning more, and to pondering big questions about what consciousness is.

And I’m sure that I will be sharing more here.

—

Wonder and Speculation

Pillars under the pyramids, megaliths at 12-16,000 year old Göbekli Tepe, ancient Egyptian granite vases that are so precise, modern equipment would still make them challenging to reproduce… it seems that every time we look a little further into the history of humanity we uncover yet another unexplained and unexpected mystery. There is so much more we don’t know about the origins of humanity.

And with the mystery comes some pretty far-fetched speculation. From giants to aliens to portals, imaginations run wild. I find it both exciting and frustrating. There are so many amazing new scientific discoveries, and then there are ideas that masquerade as insightful discoveries while being nothing more than crazy speculations based on extrapolations and circumstance.

It gets tiring listening to people share their wild, unsupported claims when there is so much intrigue with the actual facts. Let’s marvel at what we know. And sure, even speculate as wild as you want. But we don’t need to invent proof of aliens or use the size of sculptures and heavy rocks to make claims about giants. There’s already enough to marvel at.

A Tetraverse Response Video

This video probably has an ideal audience of less than a couple dozen people in the entire world. If you are reading this as a regular Daily-Ink reader, you might not spend much time thinking about 4D space and the structure of the universe… and you can just bypass this, or at least watch the second video I share as an introduction to what Joe Truss and I are talking about.

Here is:
A Dimensional Twist of the Tetraverse (A response video to Klee Irwin’s 20 Group Twist)

And hopefully more digestible, and more introductory in nature, here is:
We live in a Tetraverse

And if you want something a little more esoteric, try:
Secret Origins of the Enneagram

And finally, here is the first response video we made, to Neil deGrasse Tyson & Chuck Nice’s Startalk interview with Sarah Imari Walker:
A Short Take on Assembly Theory in the Tetraverse Model: A Geometric Representation

More videos to come in our Book of Codes series.

Taking the shot

I got my second shingles vaccine yesterday. Today my arm is sore, I have a mild headache, and I feel a bit of a chill. But the symptoms are mild and I’ll go about my day just fine. I do marvel at the idea of vaccines and how they can build our immunity to prevent serious sickness. I’m also further excited about how medical scientists are doing research using mRNA vaccines tailored to specific people to fight certain kinds of cancer. This is an incredible breakthrough because normally our immune system does not detect cancerous cells as foreign, and that’s why they are left unharmed by our immune system and spread so easily.

On the flip side, I saw a social media post by a pastor in a small town in Texas bragging that his school was the least vaccinated against measles in the country. There is a measles breakout currently going through Texas and so far one unvaccinated child has died (not from the school mentioned above). In all likelihood, there will be more as a result of not taking the vaccine.

I’m no longer surprised by anti-science, conspiracy minded people.

I can question whether during Covid, if we actually needed to vaccinate small children when only 0.4 percent of the deaths were in those under 20 years old… and still see that the vaccine worked. In fact, the stat above might have been quite a bit higher without the vaccine. I can question the application of the vaccine without needing to question the efficacy.

Imagine our world, with polio and smallpox still being a concern. When is the last time you recall someone getting the mumps? I know that I’m not immune to shingles now, but my likelihood of catching it, and/or having a very bad case is drastically reduced thanks to the vaccine. A friend of my wife got it a week before her scheduled vaccine, and she had to take a lot of time off, and still has nerve damage as a result.

Sometimes you need to trust the science, trust in conventional research, and not social media posts that cherry pick stats and outright lie to convince you otherwise. There are not a cabal of scientists collaborating to dupe you into taking measles or shingles vaccines, to somehow inject you with (insert conspiracy theory here). There are thousands of scientists dedicated to making life better, curing diseases, and increasing both your quality of life and also your time here on earth.

I’m grateful for the advances we’ve seen, and I encourage you, if you’ve missed any of these shots, to go get them.

Daily-Ink by David Truss

Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.

Tag Archives: science

Somewhere in between

Like this:

We don’t know

Like this:

Consciousness and Free Will

Like this:

Consciousness and AI

Like this:

What it means to be literate?

Like this:

The Light Source

Like this:

Wonder and Speculation

Like this:

A Tetraverse Response Video

Like this: