May 6, 2012

Only Human Beings Can Convince one Another about Facts

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Why do I expect to be taken seriously by being given the benefit of the doubt? It is because I care. Only human beings know about truth because only humans can trust each other about facts. It is because of the invention-out-of-nothing, made at a very young age, of the suspicion of benevolence being extended towards them. This invention turns them into a person because only a person can understand benevolence.

So the refusal by CERN to offer a counterproof to the presented proof that they are playing with fire (a big fire) violates my rights as a person. The benefit of the doubt is a human right to solicit – especially so in science which rests on nothing else.

My friend Tom Kerwick has a result whose proof contains a loophole if I am not mistaken, but it takes time to come to the point with him. He therefore believes the danger were not there and innocently censors my best blogs. Maybe he will talk to me after this one.

But the real question is: What is benevolence? How come a planet can become dependent on the essence of benevolence being understood? Is it not well understood by the human society? Amazingly, this is not the case.

I have an “animal model” or an artificial-intelligence model if you prefer. It presupposes that you believe in the brain equation, or more generally that human beings and other vertebrates etc. are autonomous optimizers governed by an optimality functional shaped by evolution. (The underlying mathematical problem happens to be well-defined; it is a variant to the famous traveling salesman problem.)

If so, human beings are “just” autonomous optimizers? All animals are. But what, then, is special about humans? Answer: their being persons. Are they persons from birth? No – only person-competent from birth. When do they become persons? At the moment they first invent the suspicion of benevolence. For benevolence is a person-property. How does the suspicion arise? Through a creative misunderstanding (which then turns out to be none): By their being rewarded by an adult’s displayed happiness about their own being happy at this moment.

But: Is this not exactly the same with a young wolf who is rewarded by the tail-wagging of a feeding adult who is rewarded by the youngster’s tail-wagging?

The answer is in the negative (independently of the still unknown answer to the question of whether a puppet can already be rewarded by an adult’s tail-wagging). But is not the tail-wagging an expression both of affection and of happiness – just as this holds true for the smile-laughter in the human species? This is correct. Then: why do not dogs insist on truthfulness, too?

What wolves lack compared to humans is mirror-competence. On the other hand, all of the other mirror-competent animals known (elephants, apes, dolphins, magpies) are non-rewardable by the displayed joy of the compagnon. This trait, common to wolves and humans as we saw, is a maximally rare consequence of random evolutionary “ritualization” in the sense of Huxley’s.

But: We could substitute for that particular lacking trait artificially in the individual interaction with a young bonding animal taken from one of the just-named species. A sperm whale has the largest and most complex brain on earth and thus is hardware-wise the most intelligent creature in the universe at the present state of human knowledge. Leo Szilard still thought this was the dolphin (in his fictional story “The day of the dolphins” written shortly after the catastrophe of the dropped bombs which he had made possible and then tried in vain to hold back).

The trick with the dolphins or any other of the named species: to consistently combine our own bonding signal of smile-laughter, in the interaction with the genuinely loved foster child from the other species, with the natural bonding expression of that species. Then the same “misunderstanding” of benevolence being suddenly suspected will again arise just as it does in the human playroom.

But this would mean that these animals are just as person-competent as human babies? This is correct. Understanding the love radiated by the dream-of-life giving instance (in sync with Mom‘s smile) is not a human prerogative it appears. A higher personal intelligence than ours is artificially achievable – without being man-made and without any artificial hardware required, decades before Ray Kurzweil’s proven “singularity” but in the same loving spirit.

Now maybe you hate me for being that optimistic – unless you have an autistic child who suddenly can be causally rescued from his smile-blindness (which is easy to substitute for as we saw – acoustically in our case). But I am here in the pledging position, not the giving position as I mentioned at the beginning: by my insisting on my own person right of not being denied the answer to a maximally serious question posed to the scientific community: Why is my danger-proving result not cogent – is anyone able to come up with a counter-proof?

We can leave A.I. at this point (there is a whole book on him titled “Neosentience”) since an even more life-saving issue is in the background in which I need your help: My begging the scientific community for the benefit of the doubt towards my Telemach result (a second charming youth beside Spielberg’s A.I.): Telemach says that black holes have radically different properties than are innocuously presupposed by the makers of the CERN experiment.

Why can I be so sure that I am right? It is because no one could offer a counterargument up until now. Except for saying that some accepted pieces of knowledge are then no longer valid as I had shown – which they do not believe but cannot defend against my given proof.

Okay: if I am sure so far – what does this mean? I am clamoring for the benefit of the doubt by not counteracting to my results until they have been disproved. Like the famous chimpanzee mother in the documentary who desperately waves with her arms to prevent the human aggressor from shooting – in vain. For continuing the LHC experiment in Switzerland is maximally risky if I am right. But who am I to request the human right to be falsified before being overrun?

Is this not maximally absurd: a single person requesting humankind to listen to him? It would be absurd if I had not “bent over backwards” in the words of Richard Feynman to make it maximally easy to show that I am wrong – if I am wrong. And decisively it is not absurd because of the unfathomably large consequences if my result is counteracted when true.

So I am a terrorist holding a threat in my hands? It is the other way round: The planet is holding a “device” in its hands and is denying me the right to warn it in time that the toy machine is loaded. But my friend Tom Kerwick has a counterargument to offer as he says? I am all ears and eyes to be presented with it in a way I understand – so far, I admit, I have been too stupid to see its cogency.

I am ready to cancel all my warnings with my most humble apologies if he is right. Which should be easy to find out since his argument only has to do with large numbers of particles generated and with hypothetical diameters of quarks and miniature black holes. I publicly apologize for having used up so much space on Lifeboat so far if he succeeds in making me understand his point and the latter survives to the best of my understanding. Please, dear Tom: do not erase this one. I am all on your side, only a bit slow – okay?


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. As long as this is the last post about “artificial black holes swallowing up Earth and no one believes me post” then I don’t mind it staying.

    However it doesn’t serve the Lifeboat Foundation’s best interest to promote this discussion on their blog (in fact it’s more of a distraction). A personal blog or social network would be better suited in my humble opinion.

  2. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear all
    Micro black holes could be dangerous even without Prof. Rösslers papers too.
    Only very few people have read and understood Prof. Rösslers papers on BHs. How can the readers know whether his papers contain an error or not and how can we know which side is wrong? I remember that TRMG has once directly criticized his papers scientifically by some formulas. Is it possible that nobody has understood it? So why not try to tell it layman understandable or even “semi-scientist understandable”? Or is it so difficult to tell specifically in easy words? I hope that it is known what I mean with “easy words”. I do not mean sentences like “Rössler has no papers at all” or similar stuff. If both sides would try more to talk in the language of the others then perhaps something could be achieved? It is also important to honestly ask if something is not understood. A private contact between both sides would be preferable, I think. Much time could be saved like this…
    All the best.

  3. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    And naturally I do not mean that a private contact would suffice to solve the general risk issue. The only ‘final‘ way would be a safety conference with the international scientists referring to risks — some even not handled in the LSAG safety report of CERN.

  4. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Darnell: I like your house on the moon. It is not clairvoyance but rational caring. Here, of course, I thank you that you dared appear at all. Take care, Otto

  5. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — I am taken aback by your suggestion that I censor your ‘best blogs’ it is hardly my intention to cut off your fingers so to speak. A certain number of potentially libelous posts were censored, and a certain level of inarticulate and inflammatory spamming removed to improve the presentation of Lifeboat blogs to the passing reader, which is intended to cover many many topics and not just be some telemach blogspot central.

    There has been a lot of debate on Lifeboat already on this topic — and I will decline further debate with you at present, not only as it becomes cyclical, but also on request from Markus not to state certain ‘facts’ which may damage the possibility of a safety conference. I think you know this. If you wish, please refer back to our debate on white dwarfs and neutron stars in earlier threads, or to the sections in the G&M paper on same, and we can discuss further over emails for now, but also please note that your Telemach issue is but one safety concern amongst many critics — in which case it is quite dis-ingenious to give the impression otherwise (as one can do). Sincerely — Tom.

  6. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I know it is not your intention to censor my best blogs, but this is something the victim knows the most intimately.

    Second you seem to have become complacent regarding time, dear Tom. This is your good prerogative. I will love to communicate with you by Email. But my reproach that G&M refuse to quote counter-evidence since early 2008 without being able to say a word against it, remains valid. They refused any form of communication ever since. So only the public route — via the only fearless platform — remains.

    I appreciate every feedback. And still hope that the media suddenly lift their curfew. For if Telemach is correct, there really is no time left. Therefore finding a first critic of Telemach’s is — in my humble opinion — the most important task on the planet at the present moment in time while the record collisions become denser day by day.

  7. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    To my comments above: It seems that both parties (Prof. Rössler and some of his best scientific critics) have given some arguments, names of theories, symbols or (obviously) wise words which the other party has not completely understood. Sometimes it seems to be difficult to be officially honest on the blog and to admit some ‘holes‘ in oneselfs knowledge. Therefore I think that a private (and most important: very honest) contact would be important in the case of Prof. Rösslers papers. Perhaps the problem could be solved if it would be discussed slowly and point to point, to be sure that the discussion partner would understand all, perhaps with or without a referee, that all goes well. Both parties should make their notices and the discussion could be recorded. It is possible that the original record would not be published, just to decrease the pressure on each person but an official summary should be written, to show the reasons and results. It should be checked whether there is a practical or experimental proof of the important points and theories which lead to the opinion of each party. I think it is true that otherwise the issue will probably only turn in circles — and it is not good for all. And BTW — what can we lose with such a discussion?

  8. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    There was once such a discussion. It seems that the time for it was much too short and it was not prepared well, because many points have not been answered. In many cases there was only a “yes” but at the end it just has been told that Prof. Rössler “has not given any scientific argument”, which was absolutely not true.

  9. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — regarding censorship of potentially libelous contributions which you consider your ‘best blogs’ perhaps I can find a compromise that can suit everyone — in that subjectively libelous posts could remain uncensored with web admin inserting some form of disclaimer on such posts instead of rejecting the contributions.

    As regards email discussion, thank you for the 6-point email, to which I have responded just a few short minutes ago with some initial remarks. I look forward to our continued discussion over such emails for now to find some common ground. Sincerely — Tom.

  10. Thus sounds very good, dear Tom. I gratefully agree to your re-opening all my censored-away posts with a disclaimer by the web- adminsitration added. I find this proposal maximally fair.

    I am now going to look at your Email. Take care, Otto

  11. Niccolò Tottoli says:

    Dear Tom, dear Otto
    Or perhaps just edit some comments, delete or replace (change) some words and then repost the themes on lifeboat? It would be perhaps much better than a disclaimer for the people who have told something unfavourable but it would be more work than a disclaimer. I know that some quite important comments temporarily disappeared.
    Sincerely yours, Niccolò

  12. Tom Kerwick says:

    Folks — two previously censored contributions restored with a small disclaimer on the top, one due to accusation of scientific fraud and the other referring to taking children hostage. These were selected based on being more articulate than other censored contributions. One can advise if further of Otto’s ‘best blogs’ should be re-introduced:…-time-bomb

    Unfortunately some of the more popular posts such as the controversial thread making analogies to Hitler appears to have vanished from the Trash folder…