A HINT (don't read this if you want to think about the android self-destruct problem a bit more):
Consider what would have happened if there were only two androids with red dots and not five. How long would it have taken before they self destructed and why?
Thanks for another mind-opening read - always worth reading your articles! I am, however, going to go CRAZY if I don't get the answer to your puzzle ;-)
I’ve noticed a few anomalies but still can’t work out the answer:
- We’re not told whether the androids without red dots have bare necks or dots/markings of another colour (my thoughts are they are programmed not to mention red dots specifically, but perhaps could still discuss a bare neck / alternate marking to work around this programming?).
- Those who don’t have red dots would surely have counted 5 other androids in the room who do have red dots, and reasoned they were definitely in the clear. Contrastingly, the androids who had the red dots would have definitively counted 4 other androids with red dots, but not been able to ascertain for certain whether they were the 5th one – perhaps because they didn’t know the exact total of androids in the room to begin with and/or if there was a possibility one had already self-destructed?
- When the programmer met with the androids, perhaps he unwittingly informed them that all androids with red dots were still in the room? But what gets me is why it took 5 days for the 5 androids to activate their self-destruct sequence... why 5 days to definitively deduce they were indeed one of the androids with the red dot (and I saw your hint about the number of days being linked to the number of androids, but still can't come up with what is probably SO simple or obvious). Did they wait to see if there were 4 other self-destruct sequences set off before theirs to confirm for sure?
My mind is numb from over-thinking so please have mercy and let us ultimately know the answer!
P.S. Loved the pic of Zucks and Data – uncanny similarity ;-)
First, kudos to you for sinking your teeth into it and not being able to let go. If only the public at large would be so insistent about getting to the bottom of things, whether it be about red dots or vaccines or climate change. Everyone has different skills and talents. We are here to bring them to bear on the challenges we have been given...
There are no "tricks" to this puzzle. I should have just said "a dot" and not "a red dot". There are no other markings that are present or would have any relevance to the question.
This is a puzzle about inductive reasoning that was offered to get the juices flowing as opposed to cause any mind-numbing. So I am sorry about that. The secondary intention was to demonstrate that programmers, who are trained to deconstruct complex algorithms into small steps, can be outsmarted by their own instructions. We may think that we are aware of how we think. Over and over again, computer programmers are shown that they have blindspots.
Okay, now for the solution...
You are on the right track(s). The programmer did inform them of something, that there were red dots on some of the androids. He thought it was superfluous because it was apparent to all that some of the androids had red dots. What would be the harm in verbalizing the obvious?
To be very clear, none of the androids know exactly how many of the 100 have red dots. This is because they cannot see their own necks, only the necks of others. Those five with red dots can only say that there are at least four androids with red dots and possibly five, if they themselves are in possession of one.
Those 95 without a red dot know that there are at least five androids with a red dot and possibly six, if they are in possession of one.
During the first six months of the experiment, none self destruct because none can know with certainty that they are marked with a red dot.
Let's start simply. Say there was only one android with a red dot. It knows that no other android has a dot. If the programmer visited and mentioned that at least one droid had a dot, it would be able to immediately induce that it was so marked and would self destruct that night.
Here is how one can use the hint. Let us say that there were only two (not five) androids with a dot. Let's call them droid A and B. A sees that B has a dot. B sees that A has a dot. A knows that there is not enough information for B to know that it has a red dot. That is why it never self destructs. This goes the same for B. Everything is fine and days pass.
Now, enter the programmer who casually says that some droids have a dot. A knows that B is in possession of knowledge that A doesn't have: whether or not A has a dot too. A would know that when B heard from the programmer that some droids have dots, it would have self destructed that night if A DIDN't have a dot too. Because B showed up the next day, A knew that they only reason would be because B must see a red dot on A.A now knows that it has a red dot and must self destruct that night.
This same logic applies to B who regards A in the same way. When both A and B show up for the morning meeting the day after the programmers visit, they would be able to induce that they both have red dots because they can see that nobody else does. Thus, that night they both self destruct.
If logic is applied correctly we can see that if there were three droids with dots they would all self destruct on the third night after the morning of the programmers visit. Four droids? Fourth night, etc.
Consider the situation where there was only one android with a red dot. How long it would it take for it to conclude that it was marked if it could not see its own neck? This is the key to understanding why the programmer's comments unraveled the whole thing. See my long explanation above if that isn't clear.
I don't see how this works when there are Androids that have no dots. The androids know that some don't have dots, but the word "some" doesn't give them enough info to know five have dots because of the interference... Hmm!
So let's try with 4 total, two have dots. They learn "some" have dots. When they "awake" on day two with all still alive, the dot bearers know that at least three of the others must have seen at least one dot, just like it did. Since they know at least one dot exists, but none killed themselves, wouldn't it end there, sauce none can communicate the status of the others? They all know there's at least one, which is encompassed in the word "some."
Might they all kill themselves on day three if none kill themselves on day two? Since they all see that the dot bearer didn't kill itself, they know it saw at least one dot.
Perhaps once awareness of the red dots is expressed by the human extolling their hard work, they are logically obliged to self destruct through programming, having observed each other and easily computed their possession of a red dot.
As for Dr. Prassad, he would do well to read Joining the Dots by Sarah Benson regarding electromagnetic radiation in google scholar. Herbicides and phthalates have long proven to be hormone disruptors. Is double speak common place in science now? Hope you enjoyed sardines in Portugal.
The robots weren't aware of the red dots until the programmer showed up, since they had been programmed not to mention the dots. Once the programmer made them aware, each robot would look at all the other robots and would soon be able to calculate whether they were one of the five with a dot.
Ah, but your description doesn't mention that they know how many have dots, so the above is wrong.
Every robot could see that at least four (and in most cases at least five) of the other robots had red dots before the programmer showed up, yet none could determine whether or not they themselves had one.
But they can see the other red dots, and “know” through their programming that they have significance. Also, they don’t know exactly how many of them have the dots. They can merely “deduce” that there are between four and six ‘droids with dots. Why does it take them five nights to figure it out, so that on day six, five don’t show up for the morning meeting?
I'm going to take a stab at the red dot puzzle by going in a very illogical and more sentient direction. Since the red dot robots were programmed to self-destruct upon deducing who might have a dot, once a select few deduced that all their hard work was due to the programmers' brilliance and not their own, they also deduced (by virtue of this power of deduction) that they had red dots.
I just deleted my last comment. I read it and thought too quickly. The solution to the android self-destruct problem involves induction steps that are "invisible" until the induction is complete. Invisible induction is indeed a perfect lesson for this moment, but this is a very challenging logic problem. I'm going to think through how I might lay out the answer in a way that would open eyes.
One of the points I've made in several conversations, with respect to the puzzle of "Who is the cabal?" is that invisibility has been chosen in polling by people asked which [comic-book-esque] superpower they would choose, or is the most powerful. Invisibility takes the cake. The threat of invisible pathogens falls into such thinking, as does energy waves. Still scary is whether there would be a cabal that could know that ahead of time. This is the point when I always wonder, "For what purposes did [some] Western powers reinflate China, anyhow?"
A lot to dissect here. Yes. It's an inductive reasoning problem. I am only guessing about what you mean by "invisible" induction, so I won't comment further.
In terms of the "solution", I think what most people would want to know is why was everything going great before the designer showed up and why did it all go down on the fifth night.
I love the "choose your super power" discussion. I would agree that invisibility would be high up there if you wanted to rule the world without anyone knowing you are ruling it (that's probably there only way to rule the world for more than a few minutes). I always choose teleportation (I have different aspirations).
"For what purposes did [some] Western powers reinflate China, anyhow?" Whoa. Probably enough for a book there.
By "invisible" induction I mean that there is an information model (that the androids are following) that shifts from state to state (like graph theory modeling...or Markov chains, which makes this somewhat unique as a logic problem) without any action taking place (invisible state leaps) until the androids all reach the last state at the same time, then commit suicide.
* Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
* Start fights between different races, classes and religions
* Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way
* Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials
* Appeal to successful people's egos
* Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail
* Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us
* Sacrifice people (including Jews sometimes) when necessary
* Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism
* Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect
* Rewrite history to our benefit
* Create entertaining distractions
* Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
* Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor
* Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
* Introduce a progressive tax on wealth
* Replace sound investment with speculation
* Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments
* Give bad advice to governments and everyone else
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." Nathan Rothschild https://twitter.com/KirbySommers/status/1567945974537936897
“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation’s laws. … Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.” — Mackenzie King, Canadian Prime Minister 1935-1948.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” ― Woodrow Wilson
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” – Edward Bernays – Propaganda
Overgeneralized info on the “intelligent” form of life on the Earth: we are great at whatever we do until the time when somebody else comes in and asks questions about obvious stupidities. Then, the default program kicks in, and the geniuses of science are instantly reduced to “We didn’t know it” or “Who would expect it”.
We should be concerned about electromagnetic effects on us, and it’s not anything special or advanced. Our body is a conductor of electricity and is built on the principles of electricity. We can even interact with some plastic materials and produce sparks that are not so comfortable. We do not dare to interact with sockets in walls or with open electric circuits, because we (should) know what may happen.
For some strange reason, all those advanced scientists worship the religion in which all “invisible” forms of electricity are not dangerous or hazardous to the human body. It may be that scientific thinking about these higher frequencies has a melting effect on brain matter and closes down all key circuitry, who knows... Are there any studies about it?
Quite recently science (or research) was focused on finding defects, problems, malfunctions and all other nasty stuff that will invalidate the whole project right at the start. It was pretty reasonable: destroying a prototype may be less harmful than crushing a million vehicles, plus their users. And if you can not produce a prototype resistant to general dumbness as well as material and user fatigue, you will never be authorised to enter stage two. Not even under emergency authorisation.
Well, here is the news. The science has come to the absolute end of the road. It is not needed or necessary any more. We don’t need any science, and any novel science is a huge no-no. How do we know it?
Because now the “science” is about making profits from research. Investors or funders are no longer there. Now they are called “sponsors” of the study. You may be sure that they will make sure that their sources of income and fame will profit from the research they organise and run. After all, you are not embarking on a path to discover a marvellous solution to all problems only to find out that it simply doesn’t work. Or doesn’t work as expected. Or produces side effects that will attract flocks of lawyers to put your “science” to a huge stress test.
No science there. All you now see is business models, shareholders and stakeholders, investors, profitability figures and growth projections. Guess what... you are not there, either. The user is a big unknown factor, a variable that is gladly disposed of. The user can be a live exhibition of all “smart” things that researchers should have learnt in primary schools. It won’t end well for the science. So, instead of going to the roots of the problem, the science hires public relations folks, incentives retail sellers and promoters, sponsors media through unnecessary advertising... The user is not allowed to speak out. Communication control has replaced common sense. All for a fistful of dollars... where everybody wins, except the user...
Do the androids know how many of them do NOT have a red dot? If so, they could simply subtract that number (5) from the population. If they count that many dots, it means they haven’t got one.
They don't quite know because none can see themselves. So, for those with dots they only know that there are either four or five. To those without a dot, they only know that there are five or six.
"Won’t this result in greater negative efficacy as more unvaccinated people encounter the wild-type virus and acquire natural immunity? (Yes)". AM I missing something here? Does this not imply that the vaccinated have legitimate concerns about being around the unvaccinated due to a weakened and hyper focused immune system??
Once an unvaccinated person acquires natural immunity, they will be considerably more protected than a vaxxed person with regard to subsequent infections. Based on seroprevalence studies, just about everybody has been exposed to the virus but it is the unvaccinated that will have more robust immunity. Infection rates amongst them will be lower than the vaccinated, i.e. negative efficacy.
This is the scam behind the whole thing. Negative efficacy is being hidden by the regular advocacy for boosters. It's hard to find observational data that measures the unvaccinated with the primary series who have not been boosted. They don't want us to see that data. They would much rather compare the boosted/unboosted.
I see now, it's a relative measure. Thanks. If you're in Portugal, you should also visit the Algarve area which is beautiful. My family and I lived in Southern Spain for 3 years so we visited Portugal quite often. Right now we're in SE Asia though.
This would be true were it not for the evidence that the vaccinated can spread the disease quite well, that in fact vaccination does little to prevent transmission -- as the high officials have now more or less admitted. But in any event, if you've done something that weakens your immune system and I haven't, am I the one that should be barred at the entrance?
I included it for a few reasons. First, it has to do with how difficult it is to get things right the first time when programming a system. The Covid shots were an attempt to hack our immunological operating system. It would have been a miracle if it worked the first time.
If you arrive at the solution to the puzzle you will see that those with dots came to their conclusion at the same time. Because they were programmed to be perfectly logical with no biases the situation became immediately apparent when and only when certainty could be established. In our situation in the real world we have a spectrum of objectivity and knowledge. Using edicts like "follow the science" are silly and cannot be met. Moreover things are made infinitely more difficult when we don't have open dialogue. We won't be anywhere near as efficient as the androids in reaching the truth if we are fighting about whether Kennedy should debate Hotez.
As I wrote in the piece, it was also offered as an exercise of sense making and reasoning.
Finally, I thought it dove tailed nicely with the little short story. We readily accept that we run experiments on life forms and artificial life forms all the time. Yet the idea that we may be part of one with invisible overseers usually gets dismissed as fantastical. Sure it may seem like science fiction but we cannot rule out the possibility based on anything except our own biases.
Hotez is the one with the red dot but he is so arrogant he assumes Rogan and RFK Jr. both have dots; he is also cowardly so he does not want to see the necks of the other two. (Written with tongue firmly in cheek.) 😁
There's this species on Planet Orbo ... they claim to be of superior intelligence... no problem they cannot solve they say.
This guy named Mallthoose explains that population increases exponentially -- and that food supply does not... therefore at some point the intelligent species is going to encounter a mass starvation event.
The smart species gets to work on proving Mallthoose wrong - they invent farming -- the population continues to expand exponentially - and most people have more than enough food.
But then as mass starvation threatens cuz food supply is limited by their farming methods -- a brilliant scientist invents a process that allows nitrogen to be created using fossil fuel feedstocks... and other brilliant guys invent pesticides also made from fossil fuels...
And the population explodes higher - surpassing 8 billion - there is so much food that billions of the smart species become so fat that they waddle -- many of them require mobility scooters to scoot to the shop to buy crisps and Doritos and huge bottles of sugary stuff.
Nobody thought about what would happen when the fossil fuels went into deep depletion and the easy to extract stuff was all used up ... and the remaining resources were so expensive to produce that this drove inflation out of control and all efforts to reign it in (including an endless march higher of interest rates) failed.
And then they all starved in what we call Global Holodomor ... 8 billion of them took to the streets - hungry and angry -- murdering raping and eating each other.
That's a summary of the history of the smart species...
1) Re: Atrazine influencing the surge of trans kids - I suspect it is still almost entirely social contagion. If it were an environmental agent, then we wouldn't see trans clustered in friend groups. It would be able to penetrate Hasidic Jews, Amish, Muslim communities... you wouldn't have 50 trans kids at one school and zero at a neighboring school, all sharing the same drinking water, food, etc. No?
________________
2) Re: first thought experiment. Confused on the wording between:
A - "Five of these androids have a red dot on the back of their necks, visible to all except to those who bear them."
and
B - "Every android, throughout the course of each day, is able to see who has a red dot and who doesn’t."
Does A mean that NONE of the androids who have red dots can see red dots on the other androids, or just not their own red dots (due to lacking mirrors)? If the latter than my guess was that the creator broke the "information seal" by talking about the red dots, so they became self aware and realized they were different. Or maybe I just like biblical allegories too much.
________________
3) Regarding the vaccinated being more prone to infection from variants, what is frustrating to me is that this was a known concern by the "architects" of "the Narrative". It's even included in Dan Werb's book "The Invisible Siege", which I suspect was ghostwritten by Ralph Baric, as it serves as mostly a biography of Ralphs career and how he saved us from Covid 19 with his work laying foundation for the "miraculous" vaccines - it's a fascinating read, especially since it was written during that brief window where the world appeared to believe the drop in cases was from the vaccine and not natural seasonality. One of my favorite passages I keep trying to draw attention to: https://twitter.com/MichaelDAmbro17/status/1670901225506721796
It's baffling that we could have the top scientists in this field openly discussing the problem that SARS vaccines just make the target prone to variants, see this happen on a global scale-in every single country in the world, and stick our heads in the sand. Crazy.
4) While I don't want to dive into a 5G discussion, I do wonder what we can do in how humanity pursues science (with a lower case "s") to improve our knowledge.
If 5G doesn't cause cancer, then how can there be 500 papers indicating it's harmful?
If 5G does cause cancer, then can there be 500 papers indicating it's harmless?
It seems we must be inefficient in discovering truth, or at least reproducible knowledge.
For a more contemporary example, how is it that within 6 months we conjured up 70 studies finding that cloth masks could stop viral transmission by 50%-100%? I think everyone - even the crazy covidians - concede cloth masks are useless, yet just 2+ years ago they were parading bad study after bad study showing that they halted covid in Kansas, or in a Missouri salon, or Boston Schools and now they have memoryholed this insanity (yet still claim masks work).
My collection of mask studies based off initial list Katelyn "Your Local Epidemiologist" Jetelina showed "the science is settled" on masks in November 2020 (I have added another 250).
The causes of gender dysphoria are almost certainly multi factorial including chemicals and social pressures imo. We undoubtedly have a decline in testosterone levels in men going back several decades which is hard to explain with behavioral permissibility alone.
Every android knows who has a red dot and who doesn’t. None of the androids know if they themselves have one or not.
You are articulating the exact problem that I am hoping to solve with this substack. Some studies are thrown away and some are hoisted up by the powers that be. The public is being manipulated. The only way through this is to sharpen our own discernment and decide for oneself. It’s not easy to know what is happening. It’s much easier to identify a lie. With regard to masking, you may enjoy the article I wrote that demonstrates how the cdc was clearly using mathematical techniques and logic to show an association between mandates and a drop in cases. The analysis they used is a master class in manipulation.
Weill look for tha post, just stumbled upon you early this week so getting caught up on you lens.
For the trans chemical hypothesis, a few issues I've had with this explanation (still in my consideration set of course):
1) In males with low testosterone - especially with medical reasons (various genetic conditions, testicular cancer, etc) I am not aware of a tendency to want to wear dresses and be perceived as the opposite sex.
2) Despite testosterone decreasing nationally - it is the female to male cohort which has really exploded. Sure, trans women grab most of headlines due to competing in sports or destroying what was left of the Bud Light fanbase, but it's been 1000% increase in girls who think they are boys and only modest increase in dudes who want to tuck their dicks and wear a dress.
3) I can't much research checking the testosterone levels in the men who want to be women before they want to start blockers and estrogen. Do they have even lower T than the general population?
Just some of the questions I have had considering environment/chemical contribution to the explosion - plus my own recency/exposure biases as I have seen it spread through schools (and then rapidly dissipate). It like Goth... Except you want to cut you boobs off instead of listen to Marilyn Manson.
Good points. I am certainly not any authority on this matter. However it should be clear that when we attack people who argue that the phenomenon needs to examined openly we are on the wrong track for sure.
I am not sure what you are asking here. Imprinting only occurs with vaccination, not exposure naturally. It puts the vaccinated at a disadvantage as time goes on and different strains emerge.
A HINT (don't read this if you want to think about the android self-destruct problem a bit more):
Consider what would have happened if there were only two androids with red dots and not five. How long would it have taken before they self destructed and why?
THE SOLUTION is given in the thread below
Thanks for another mind-opening read - always worth reading your articles! I am, however, going to go CRAZY if I don't get the answer to your puzzle ;-)
I’ve noticed a few anomalies but still can’t work out the answer:
- We’re not told whether the androids without red dots have bare necks or dots/markings of another colour (my thoughts are they are programmed not to mention red dots specifically, but perhaps could still discuss a bare neck / alternate marking to work around this programming?).
- Those who don’t have red dots would surely have counted 5 other androids in the room who do have red dots, and reasoned they were definitely in the clear. Contrastingly, the androids who had the red dots would have definitively counted 4 other androids with red dots, but not been able to ascertain for certain whether they were the 5th one – perhaps because they didn’t know the exact total of androids in the room to begin with and/or if there was a possibility one had already self-destructed?
- When the programmer met with the androids, perhaps he unwittingly informed them that all androids with red dots were still in the room? But what gets me is why it took 5 days for the 5 androids to activate their self-destruct sequence... why 5 days to definitively deduce they were indeed one of the androids with the red dot (and I saw your hint about the number of days being linked to the number of androids, but still can't come up with what is probably SO simple or obvious). Did they wait to see if there were 4 other self-destruct sequences set off before theirs to confirm for sure?
My mind is numb from over-thinking so please have mercy and let us ultimately know the answer!
P.S. Loved the pic of Zucks and Data – uncanny similarity ;-)
First, kudos to you for sinking your teeth into it and not being able to let go. If only the public at large would be so insistent about getting to the bottom of things, whether it be about red dots or vaccines or climate change. Everyone has different skills and talents. We are here to bring them to bear on the challenges we have been given...
There are no "tricks" to this puzzle. I should have just said "a dot" and not "a red dot". There are no other markings that are present or would have any relevance to the question.
This is a puzzle about inductive reasoning that was offered to get the juices flowing as opposed to cause any mind-numbing. So I am sorry about that. The secondary intention was to demonstrate that programmers, who are trained to deconstruct complex algorithms into small steps, can be outsmarted by their own instructions. We may think that we are aware of how we think. Over and over again, computer programmers are shown that they have blindspots.
Okay, now for the solution...
You are on the right track(s). The programmer did inform them of something, that there were red dots on some of the androids. He thought it was superfluous because it was apparent to all that some of the androids had red dots. What would be the harm in verbalizing the obvious?
To be very clear, none of the androids know exactly how many of the 100 have red dots. This is because they cannot see their own necks, only the necks of others. Those five with red dots can only say that there are at least four androids with red dots and possibly five, if they themselves are in possession of one.
Those 95 without a red dot know that there are at least five androids with a red dot and possibly six, if they are in possession of one.
During the first six months of the experiment, none self destruct because none can know with certainty that they are marked with a red dot.
Let's start simply. Say there was only one android with a red dot. It knows that no other android has a dot. If the programmer visited and mentioned that at least one droid had a dot, it would be able to immediately induce that it was so marked and would self destruct that night.
Here is how one can use the hint. Let us say that there were only two (not five) androids with a dot. Let's call them droid A and B. A sees that B has a dot. B sees that A has a dot. A knows that there is not enough information for B to know that it has a red dot. That is why it never self destructs. This goes the same for B. Everything is fine and days pass.
Now, enter the programmer who casually says that some droids have a dot. A knows that B is in possession of knowledge that A doesn't have: whether or not A has a dot too. A would know that when B heard from the programmer that some droids have dots, it would have self destructed that night if A DIDN't have a dot too. Because B showed up the next day, A knew that they only reason would be because B must see a red dot on A.A now knows that it has a red dot and must self destruct that night.
This same logic applies to B who regards A in the same way. When both A and B show up for the morning meeting the day after the programmers visit, they would be able to induce that they both have red dots because they can see that nobody else does. Thus, that night they both self destruct.
If logic is applied correctly we can see that if there were three droids with dots they would all self destruct on the third night after the morning of the programmers visit. Four droids? Fourth night, etc.
I don’t see how the programmer’s visit changes anything. Shouldn’t the five have self-destructed after the fifth night of their creation?
Consider the situation where there was only one android with a red dot. How long it would it take for it to conclude that it was marked if it could not see its own neck? This is the key to understanding why the programmer's comments unraveled the whole thing. See my long explanation above if that isn't clear.
So simply put, the programmer let them know there were “some” droids with dots. If he had said “one or more” he would have spared them all?
Thanks so much, Madhava - was on the right track, but needed that extra clarification as to why the 5 nights delay!
The two with dots makes sense.
I don't see how this works when there are Androids that have no dots. The androids know that some don't have dots, but the word "some" doesn't give them enough info to know five have dots because of the interference... Hmm!
So let's try with 4 total, two have dots. They learn "some" have dots. When they "awake" on day two with all still alive, the dot bearers know that at least three of the others must have seen at least one dot, just like it did. Since they know at least one dot exists, but none killed themselves, wouldn't it end there, sauce none can communicate the status of the others? They all know there's at least one, which is encompassed in the word "some."
Might they all kill themselves on day three if none kill themselves on day two? Since they all see that the dot bearer didn't kill itself, they know it saw at least one dot.
Thank you for informing about Wi-Fi harms.
So grateful for RFK Jr's courage in telling the truth on all harmful topics
TO read more about wireless health effects:
please see the latest scientific info about this topic at Physicians for Safe Technology
https://mdsafetech.org/wi-fi-effects/
https://mdsafetech.org/science/behavior/
https://mdsafetech.org/neurodegeneration/
https://mdsafetech.org/cancer/
https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/
https://mdsafetech.org/nervous-system/
https://mdsafetech.org/immune-system/
https://mdsafetech.org/cardiac-effects-of-radiofrequency-radiation/
https://mdsafetech.org/eye-effects/
Note: I don't have a PhD, but when I posted, it added PhD after my name, I don't know why. Thanks. Angela Tsiang
What an enjoyable read and variety. Thanks!
Perhaps once awareness of the red dots is expressed by the human extolling their hard work, they are logically obliged to self destruct through programming, having observed each other and easily computed their possession of a red dot.
As for Dr. Prassad, he would do well to read Joining the Dots by Sarah Benson regarding electromagnetic radiation in google scholar. Herbicides and phthalates have long proven to be hormone disruptors. Is double speak common place in science now? Hope you enjoyed sardines in Portugal.
The robots weren't aware of the red dots until the programmer showed up, since they had been programmed not to mention the dots. Once the programmer made them aware, each robot would look at all the other robots and would soon be able to calculate whether they were one of the five with a dot.
Ah, but your description doesn't mention that they know how many have dots, so the above is wrong.
Every robot could see that at least four (and in most cases at least five) of the other robots had red dots before the programmer showed up, yet none could determine whether or not they themselves had one.
But they can see the other red dots, and “know” through their programming that they have significance. Also, they don’t know exactly how many of them have the dots. They can merely “deduce” that there are between four and six ‘droids with dots. Why does it take them five nights to figure it out, so that on day six, five don’t show up for the morning meeting?
Yes. That is the essence of the puzzle.
Is the designer human or another droid?
depends on how you regard Zuckerberg
I'm going to take a stab at the red dot puzzle by going in a very illogical and more sentient direction. Since the red dot robots were programmed to self-destruct upon deducing who might have a dot, once a select few deduced that all their hard work was due to the programmers' brilliance and not their own, they also deduced (by virtue of this power of deduction) that they had red dots.
I just deleted my last comment. I read it and thought too quickly. The solution to the android self-destruct problem involves induction steps that are "invisible" until the induction is complete. Invisible induction is indeed a perfect lesson for this moment, but this is a very challenging logic problem. I'm going to think through how I might lay out the answer in a way that would open eyes.
One of the points I've made in several conversations, with respect to the puzzle of "Who is the cabal?" is that invisibility has been chosen in polling by people asked which [comic-book-esque] superpower they would choose, or is the most powerful. Invisibility takes the cake. The threat of invisible pathogens falls into such thinking, as does energy waves. Still scary is whether there would be a cabal that could know that ahead of time. This is the point when I always wonder, "For what purposes did [some] Western powers reinflate China, anyhow?"
A lot to dissect here. Yes. It's an inductive reasoning problem. I am only guessing about what you mean by "invisible" induction, so I won't comment further.
In terms of the "solution", I think what most people would want to know is why was everything going great before the designer showed up and why did it all go down on the fifth night.
I love the "choose your super power" discussion. I would agree that invisibility would be high up there if you wanted to rule the world without anyone knowing you are ruling it (that's probably there only way to rule the world for more than a few minutes). I always choose teleportation (I have different aspirations).
"For what purposes did [some] Western powers reinflate China, anyhow?" Whoa. Probably enough for a book there.
By "invisible" induction I mean that there is an information model (that the androids are following) that shifts from state to state (like graph theory modeling...or Markov chains, which makes this somewhat unique as a logic problem) without any action taking place (invisible state leaps) until the androids all reach the last state at the same time, then commit suicide.
This is precisely correct. I put the solution in a pinned thread at the top in case you wish to expand on it.
Invisibility it is... very few know this exists.
The Protocols Of Zion
Published 1903
* Place our agents and helpers everywhere
* Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
* Start fights between different races, classes and religions
* Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way
* Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials
* Appeal to successful people's egos
* Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail
* Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us
* Sacrifice people (including Jews sometimes) when necessary
* Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism
* Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect
* Rewrite history to our benefit
* Create entertaining distractions
* Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
* Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor
* Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
* Introduce a progressive tax on wealth
* Replace sound investment with speculation
* Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments
* Give bad advice to governments and everyone else
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." Nathan Rothschild https://twitter.com/KirbySommers/status/1567945974537936897
“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation’s laws. … Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.” — Mackenzie King, Canadian Prime Minister 1935-1948.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” ― Woodrow Wilson
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” – Edward Bernays – Propaganda
I loved that query. Whoa is right!
Excellent writing, thank you.
Overgeneralized info on the “intelligent” form of life on the Earth: we are great at whatever we do until the time when somebody else comes in and asks questions about obvious stupidities. Then, the default program kicks in, and the geniuses of science are instantly reduced to “We didn’t know it” or “Who would expect it”.
We should be concerned about electromagnetic effects on us, and it’s not anything special or advanced. Our body is a conductor of electricity and is built on the principles of electricity. We can even interact with some plastic materials and produce sparks that are not so comfortable. We do not dare to interact with sockets in walls or with open electric circuits, because we (should) know what may happen.
For some strange reason, all those advanced scientists worship the religion in which all “invisible” forms of electricity are not dangerous or hazardous to the human body. It may be that scientific thinking about these higher frequencies has a melting effect on brain matter and closes down all key circuitry, who knows... Are there any studies about it?
Quite recently science (or research) was focused on finding defects, problems, malfunctions and all other nasty stuff that will invalidate the whole project right at the start. It was pretty reasonable: destroying a prototype may be less harmful than crushing a million vehicles, plus their users. And if you can not produce a prototype resistant to general dumbness as well as material and user fatigue, you will never be authorised to enter stage two. Not even under emergency authorisation.
Well, here is the news. The science has come to the absolute end of the road. It is not needed or necessary any more. We don’t need any science, and any novel science is a huge no-no. How do we know it?
Because now the “science” is about making profits from research. Investors or funders are no longer there. Now they are called “sponsors” of the study. You may be sure that they will make sure that their sources of income and fame will profit from the research they organise and run. After all, you are not embarking on a path to discover a marvellous solution to all problems only to find out that it simply doesn’t work. Or doesn’t work as expected. Or produces side effects that will attract flocks of lawyers to put your “science” to a huge stress test.
No science there. All you now see is business models, shareholders and stakeholders, investors, profitability figures and growth projections. Guess what... you are not there, either. The user is a big unknown factor, a variable that is gladly disposed of. The user can be a live exhibition of all “smart” things that researchers should have learnt in primary schools. It won’t end well for the science. So, instead of going to the roots of the problem, the science hires public relations folks, incentives retail sellers and promoters, sponsors media through unnecessary advertising... The user is not allowed to speak out. Communication control has replaced common sense. All for a fistful of dollars... where everybody wins, except the user...
Do the androids know how many of them do NOT have a red dot? If so, they could simply subtract that number (5) from the population. If they count that many dots, it means they haven’t got one.
They don't quite know because none can see themselves. So, for those with dots they only know that there are either four or five. To those without a dot, they only know that there are five or six.
"Won’t this result in greater negative efficacy as more unvaccinated people encounter the wild-type virus and acquire natural immunity? (Yes)". AM I missing something here? Does this not imply that the vaccinated have legitimate concerns about being around the unvaccinated due to a weakened and hyper focused immune system??
Once an unvaccinated person acquires natural immunity, they will be considerably more protected than a vaxxed person with regard to subsequent infections. Based on seroprevalence studies, just about everybody has been exposed to the virus but it is the unvaccinated that will have more robust immunity. Infection rates amongst them will be lower than the vaccinated, i.e. negative efficacy.
This is the scam behind the whole thing. Negative efficacy is being hidden by the regular advocacy for boosters. It's hard to find observational data that measures the unvaccinated with the primary series who have not been boosted. They don't want us to see that data. They would much rather compare the boosted/unboosted.
I see now, it's a relative measure. Thanks. If you're in Portugal, you should also visit the Algarve area which is beautiful. My family and I lived in Southern Spain for 3 years so we visited Portugal quite often. Right now we're in SE Asia though.
And I might add that the wines from the Algarve region are quite delicious!
This would be true were it not for the evidence that the vaccinated can spread the disease quite well, that in fact vaccination does little to prevent transmission -- as the high officials have now more or less admitted. But in any event, if you've done something that weakens your immune system and I haven't, am I the one that should be barred at the entrance?
The other part of the puzzle is, how does this puzzle relate to the Hotez/Rogan/RFK situation?
I included it for a few reasons. First, it has to do with how difficult it is to get things right the first time when programming a system. The Covid shots were an attempt to hack our immunological operating system. It would have been a miracle if it worked the first time.
If you arrive at the solution to the puzzle you will see that those with dots came to their conclusion at the same time. Because they were programmed to be perfectly logical with no biases the situation became immediately apparent when and only when certainty could be established. In our situation in the real world we have a spectrum of objectivity and knowledge. Using edicts like "follow the science" are silly and cannot be met. Moreover things are made infinitely more difficult when we don't have open dialogue. We won't be anywhere near as efficient as the androids in reaching the truth if we are fighting about whether Kennedy should debate Hotez.
As I wrote in the piece, it was also offered as an exercise of sense making and reasoning.
Finally, I thought it dove tailed nicely with the little short story. We readily accept that we run experiments on life forms and artificial life forms all the time. Yet the idea that we may be part of one with invisible overseers usually gets dismissed as fantastical. Sure it may seem like science fiction but we cannot rule out the possibility based on anything except our own biases.
Hotez is the one with the red dot but he is so arrogant he assumes Rogan and RFK Jr. both have dots; he is also cowardly so he does not want to see the necks of the other two. (Written with tongue firmly in cheek.) 😁
Prasad is either an arrogant prick or he feels like he needs to appear to be a balanced arbiter of all things by punching down
There's this species on Planet Orbo ... they claim to be of superior intelligence... no problem they cannot solve they say.
This guy named Mallthoose explains that population increases exponentially -- and that food supply does not... therefore at some point the intelligent species is going to encounter a mass starvation event.
The smart species gets to work on proving Mallthoose wrong - they invent farming -- the population continues to expand exponentially - and most people have more than enough food.
But then as mass starvation threatens cuz food supply is limited by their farming methods -- a brilliant scientist invents a process that allows nitrogen to be created using fossil fuel feedstocks... and other brilliant guys invent pesticides also made from fossil fuels...
And the population explodes higher - surpassing 8 billion - there is so much food that billions of the smart species become so fat that they waddle -- many of them require mobility scooters to scoot to the shop to buy crisps and Doritos and huge bottles of sugary stuff.
Nobody thought about what would happen when the fossil fuels went into deep depletion and the easy to extract stuff was all used up ... and the remaining resources were so expensive to produce that this drove inflation out of control and all efforts to reign it in (including an endless march higher of interest rates) failed.
And then they all starved in what we call Global Holodomor ... 8 billion of them took to the streets - hungry and angry -- murdering raping and eating each other.
That's a summary of the history of the smart species...
But I left out one key part - before their civilization collapsed into murder rape and cannibalism... some wise men who run the show -- did this https://www.headsupster.com/forumthread?shortId=220
Thoughts:
1) Re: Atrazine influencing the surge of trans kids - I suspect it is still almost entirely social contagion. If it were an environmental agent, then we wouldn't see trans clustered in friend groups. It would be able to penetrate Hasidic Jews, Amish, Muslim communities... you wouldn't have 50 trans kids at one school and zero at a neighboring school, all sharing the same drinking water, food, etc. No?
________________
2) Re: first thought experiment. Confused on the wording between:
A - "Five of these androids have a red dot on the back of their necks, visible to all except to those who bear them."
and
B - "Every android, throughout the course of each day, is able to see who has a red dot and who doesn’t."
Does A mean that NONE of the androids who have red dots can see red dots on the other androids, or just not their own red dots (due to lacking mirrors)? If the latter than my guess was that the creator broke the "information seal" by talking about the red dots, so they became self aware and realized they were different. Or maybe I just like biblical allegories too much.
________________
3) Regarding the vaccinated being more prone to infection from variants, what is frustrating to me is that this was a known concern by the "architects" of "the Narrative". It's even included in Dan Werb's book "The Invisible Siege", which I suspect was ghostwritten by Ralph Baric, as it serves as mostly a biography of Ralphs career and how he saved us from Covid 19 with his work laying foundation for the "miraculous" vaccines - it's a fascinating read, especially since it was written during that brief window where the world appeared to believe the drop in cases was from the vaccine and not natural seasonality. One of my favorite passages I keep trying to draw attention to: https://twitter.com/MichaelDAmbro17/status/1670901225506721796
It's baffling that we could have the top scientists in this field openly discussing the problem that SARS vaccines just make the target prone to variants, see this happen on a global scale-in every single country in the world, and stick our heads in the sand. Crazy.
4) While I don't want to dive into a 5G discussion, I do wonder what we can do in how humanity pursues science (with a lower case "s") to improve our knowledge.
If 5G doesn't cause cancer, then how can there be 500 papers indicating it's harmful?
If 5G does cause cancer, then can there be 500 papers indicating it's harmless?
It seems we must be inefficient in discovering truth, or at least reproducible knowledge.
For a more contemporary example, how is it that within 6 months we conjured up 70 studies finding that cloth masks could stop viral transmission by 50%-100%? I think everyone - even the crazy covidians - concede cloth masks are useless, yet just 2+ years ago they were parading bad study after bad study showing that they halted covid in Kansas, or in a Missouri salon, or Boston Schools and now they have memoryholed this insanity (yet still claim masks work).
My collection of mask studies based off initial list Katelyn "Your Local Epidemiologist" Jetelina showed "the science is settled" on masks in November 2020 (I have added another 250).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ahaJui6Af0kGYMwHgAtnKCE6-bHbCLxnrQxuMC0kygA/edit?usp=sharing
The causes of gender dysphoria are almost certainly multi factorial including chemicals and social pressures imo. We undoubtedly have a decline in testosterone levels in men going back several decades which is hard to explain with behavioral permissibility alone.
Every android knows who has a red dot and who doesn’t. None of the androids know if they themselves have one or not.
You are articulating the exact problem that I am hoping to solve with this substack. Some studies are thrown away and some are hoisted up by the powers that be. The public is being manipulated. The only way through this is to sharpen our own discernment and decide for oneself. It’s not easy to know what is happening. It’s much easier to identify a lie. With regard to masking, you may enjoy the article I wrote that demonstrates how the cdc was clearly using mathematical techniques and logic to show an association between mandates and a drop in cases. The analysis they used is a master class in manipulation.
Weill look for tha post, just stumbled upon you early this week so getting caught up on you lens.
For the trans chemical hypothesis, a few issues I've had with this explanation (still in my consideration set of course):
1) In males with low testosterone - especially with medical reasons (various genetic conditions, testicular cancer, etc) I am not aware of a tendency to want to wear dresses and be perceived as the opposite sex.
2) Despite testosterone decreasing nationally - it is the female to male cohort which has really exploded. Sure, trans women grab most of headlines due to competing in sports or destroying what was left of the Bud Light fanbase, but it's been 1000% increase in girls who think they are boys and only modest increase in dudes who want to tuck their dicks and wear a dress.
3) I can't much research checking the testosterone levels in the men who want to be women before they want to start blockers and estrogen. Do they have even lower T than the general population?
Just some of the questions I have had considering environment/chemical contribution to the explosion - plus my own recency/exposure biases as I have seen it spread through schools (and then rapidly dissipate). It like Goth... Except you want to cut you boobs off instead of listen to Marilyn Manson.
Good points. I am certainly not any authority on this matter. However it should be clear that when we attack people who argue that the phenomenon needs to examined openly we are on the wrong track for sure.
I am not sure what you are asking here. Imprinting only occurs with vaccination, not exposure naturally. It puts the vaccinated at a disadvantage as time goes on and different strains emerge.