Life In 19x19

Uberdude wrote:and vaccines seems rather more than "subject to doubt".

Maybe one of Bill Gate's colleagues, friends or relatives will pipe up, and explain his philanthropy more thoroughly, however the problem with corporate structures in instances like these is precisely that there are little profits to be gained by administering vaccines, so there are little incentive to promote such knowledge however valid the science is.

DrStraw, the site itself says they aren't just questioned but "strongly criticize[d]". I changed the verb for variety, I shouldn't have. As part of your fortunate good health you don't have and can't get smallpox, a horrible disease the eradication of which through vaccination I'd call one of (evil mainstream) medicine's great achievements.

An alternate view.

Uberdude wrote:DrStraw, the site itself says they aren't just questioned but "strongly criticize[d]". I changed the verb for variety, I shouldn't have. As part of your fortunate good health you don't have and can't get smallpox, a horrible disease the eradication of which through vaccination I'd call one of (evil mainstream) medicine's great achievements.

I did say unless absolutely essential. I am only 95% Luddite. But flu shots and similar for humans, and most shots for pets, are more dangerous then beneficial.

Also, that web site happened to be the one I found when I did a search. There are probably others, although it is the one I originally got the story from. I read it regularly and he makes way more sense than most people.

lemmata wrote:An alternate view.

Its really hard to take any commentary seriously where they refute a mathematical argument with a couple of handwavey sentences. "Oh, everyone knows a pole doesn't balance on a cart, so this is wrong"

It seems like these author's articles are always like that, they attack mathematically heavy work with words only - as if it will somehow prove the math wrong. Its very strange.

DrStraw wrote: I refuse any drugs or vaccines unless absolutely essential, and have had none of either in many, many years. I've needed neither and have not got sick. Living a healthy lifestyle minimizes the need for them. Sure, I may have got a little lucky, but then you make your own luck, don't you.

Since it's not clear which vaccines you are avoiding, it's hard to pinpoint the source. But in most cases of vaccine refuse, the lack of illnesses is "security by the numbers." If 99% of the people you interact with are vaccinated against X, they are quite likely not carriers of X and thus you are incredibly likely to never, ever get infected by X. When the number of non-vaccinated people start to rise, this will change. Dramatically.

DrStraw wrote: I did say unless absolutely essential. I am only 95% Luddite. But flu shots and similar for humans, and most shots for pets, are more dangerous then beneficial.

Oh, found the details. Well, flu shots are probably completely unnecessary, except for the small amount of people very susceptible to flu complications (like my grandfather was, for instance.)

But the trend lately is for a lot of parents to dismiss the standard "children vaccines" we get even before realising. Or tetanus vaccine "when needed." I've seen this first hand, and this will (sooner or later) lead to a bump in illnesses that felt "long gone." Actually the number of cases for whooping cough, measles and the like are raising steadily, year by year.

RBerenguel wrote:

DrStraw wrote: I did say unless absolutely essential. I am only 95% Luddite. But flu shots and similar for humans, and most shots for pets, are more dangerous then beneficial.

Oh, found the details. Well, flu shots are probably completely unnecessary, except for the small amount of people very susceptible to flu complications (like my grandfather was, for instance.)

But the trend lately is for a lot of parents to dismiss the standard "children vaccines" we get even before realising. Or tetanus vaccine "when needed." I've seen this first hand, and this will (sooner or later) lead to a bump in illnesses that felt "long gone." Actually the number of cases for whooping cough, measles and the like are raising steadily, year by year.

So are illnesses which are the side effects of vaccines. No, don't ask for references. You can find them if you want, but I have too many things to do and am not inclined to do the work for you.

DrStraw wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:

DrStraw wrote: I did say unless absolutely essential. I am only 95% Luddite. But flu shots and similar for humans, and most shots for pets, are more dangerous then beneficial.

Oh, found the details. Well, flu shots are probably completely unnecessary, except for the small amount of people very susceptible to flu complications (like my grandfather was, for instance.)

But the trend lately is for a lot of parents to dismiss the standard "children vaccines" we get even before realising. Or tetanus vaccine "when needed." I've seen this first hand, and this will (sooner or later) lead to a bump in illnesses that felt "long gone." Actually the number of cases for whooping cough, measles and the like are raising steadily, year by year.

So are illnesses which are the side effects of vaccines. No, don't ask for references. You can find them if you want, but I have too many things to do and am not inclined to do the work for you.

The thing is, I know. No need to look for it again. It's just a pendulum swing, and when 50k or 100k people die all of sudden from some long-gone illness the pendulum will swing again.

badukJr wrote:

lemmata wrote:An alternate view.

Its really hard to take any commentary seriously where they refute a mathematical argument with a couple of handwavey sentences. "Oh, everyone knows a pole doesn't balance on a cart, so this is wrong"

It seems like these author's articles are always like that, they attack mathematically heavy work with words only - as if it will somehow prove the math wrong. Its very strange.

Perhaps I shall offer a criticism myself, if only to prevent the thread from turning into an argument about vaccines.

There is no mathematical argument to refute. The so-called "equation for intelligence" is actually just an old thermodynamics equation for entropic force. It accurately predicts certain important physical processes. TED Video Guy (TVG) did not come up with this equation. In fact, we might even say that all the interesting claims made by TVG are really hand-waving arguments.

What TVG does is essentially this: He takes a system (like the three discs of different sizes, the smallest of which is in a tube). He defines some state/control variables that determine the transition to future states. Changing the control variables moves the large disc. He then lets these state/control variables be relabeled as variables in the thermodynamics equation and uses it to generate the value of the control variable (move the largest disk) in the next state.

When he does this, the large disc is moved to hit the medium disc until it dislodges the smallest disc from the tube. He says that the discs represent a monkey, a tool, and a piece of food in a tight space. But there is no math that says this is what it is supposed to represent. Indeed, he doesn't even mathematically prove that this equation will necessarily generate such behavior. The computer simulations all use very specific parameter values. It is unclear how robust they are to changes in those values. Essentially, in academic terms, all he did, even in the published paper, was tell a few fascinating anecdotes.

The only scientifically valid conclusion we can draw from TVG's original paper is that this equation can be used to generate behavior for three different situations that is usually achieved with three separate algorithms.

TVG only jumps into the realm of pseudoscience hokum typical of many TED talks when he starts claiming that he has found any scientifically valid evidence that this equation has anything to do with intelligence. That's wonderful for a cocktail party, which perhaps describes the prevailing mood at these TED talks, but not appropriate for a serious conversation about science.

I found the talk inspiring and entertaining. The concept of intelligence being something like the desire to have as many options as possible in the future was new to me.

Astonishing that nobody here wants to discuss the relation to Go. It applies quite nicely, doesn't it?