Samstag, 31. März 2018

Capitalism vs. Marxism

There has recently been another discussion about Capitalism vs. Marxism in a group on Facebook. This is what I wrote:

Capitalism is not a "system"; it is natural human behaviour. That is the prime misconception many "socialists" and "communists" have. That said, of course natural human behaviour has its flaws and can lead to undesired side-effects. The "solutions" Marx proposed, however, are none; Ludwig von Mises already provided a theoretical explanation in the 1920's why socialism won't work, and meanwhile history has told us that all attempts to implement socialism so far have led to millions of deaths and not a single one to lasting economic prosperity.

In this context, see also the following blog postings of mine:
Why the debate Capitalism vs. Socialism is obsolete
The Mendacity of the Left
Life in the different political systems of our days

Sonntag, 25. März 2018

What is going wrong in Western society

In a statement about a psychologist who has recently been gaining attention on YouTube, Christopher Langan has written a couple of wise things, which reflect what is currently going wrong in Western society:
He embraces certain false assumptions like the alleged irresolvability of certain religious questions, the alleged existence of a true meritocracy, and the alleged ability of women to choose the best mates on the basis of where males reside in the power structure and how well they navigate the power hierarchy. He seems to associate the ability to get ahead under the status quo with "intelligence" when in fact, the correlation of success with intelligence persists only up to a rather unimpressive level of cognitive ability, and possibly with physical and moral excellence as well (ditto at best). In reality, economic and political success is unavoidably affected by numerous confounding factors.
In reality, the ability to navigate and rise in a corrupt power structure is less a function of real merit than of its exact opposite: blind ambition and moral weakness conducing to the acceptance of corrupt values and policies embraced by the power structure, susceptibility to ideological indoctrination (a cognitive vulnerability which certainly fails to correlate with extremely high intelligence), and so on, all coupled with inherited or undeserved wealth, powerful connections, and fortuitous events. Obviously, this is no good for breeding, and just as obviously, most women who themselves might classify as "good breeding stock" are too venal, shortsighted, destructively indoctrinated, and just plain confused to choose the best males for procreating the species, especially when this seems to threaten their "feminist" prerogatives.

At high school no girl seemed to be interested in me despite my obvious talents. They prefered sons of parents with high social status. This changed at medical school because then, it seemed that I was "becoming something". By contrast, I never followed this pattern of partner selection. The first woman who approached me at medical school was the daughter of a bank manager, later I was approached by daughters of university professors and even by the daughter of the owner (!) of one of the largest privately-owned hospitals in Vienna. It turned out the daughter of a relatively unimportant engineer became my first girlfriend, and the daughter of a small businessman my second. I never cared about status. Some people dealing with me failed to realize that.

Here in Austria the profession of your parents plays a great role in general. I may also have been put at an disadvantage in my medical career because my mother was a teacher, which is a profession many medical doctors have a bad opinion about. When applying for a position at the Vienna General Hospital you have to submit a form containing, among other data, the professions of your parents.

And, of course, the reason why most parents want their children to be "intelligent" is that they want them to be successful.

Freitag, 23. März 2018

Above-average intelligence - III

In this context, let me also state that my late friend and mentor Dr. Uwe Rohr was allegedly an acquaintance of the wife of Otto Hahn, the Nobel Prize winning scientist who discovered nuclear fission. This old lady told him that there had always been researchers at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute who were far more talented than those who eventually won the Nobel Prize, but all of these supersmart researchers sooner or later left academia to lead an ordinary life; some of them even left the country, disappeared or killed themselves. To my mind, this proves that academia is a decent place to work in for Sigma 2 and Sigma 3 people, but not for the higher ranges of above-average intelligence. Also, as Christopher Langan stated in the video interview that was made with him a couple of years ago, academia is an emotionally very "cold" and "bureaucratic" place.

Above-average intelligence - II

I thought again about what the different levels of above-average intelligence mean. Here are my ideas:

Sigma 1: is able to independently acquire knowledge from books.
Sigma 2: is able to solve problems by thinking.
Sigma 3: is able to devise experiments from which new insights can be gained.
Sigma 4: is able to write theoretical works with original thought processes from which new insights can be gained.
Sigma 5: is probably able to establish a whole new branch of science alone.
Sigma 6: is probably able to develop a logically coherent theory about how the world works ("Theory of Everything").

These short descriptions "very much seem to make sense", in my humble opinion.

Überdurchschnittliche Intelligenz - II

Ich habe noch einmal darüber nachgedacht, was die einzelnen Stufen überdurchschnittlicher Intelligenz bedeuten. Hier meine Ideen:

Sigma 1: ist in der Lage, sich selbstständig Wissen aus Büchern anzueignen.
Sigma 2: ist in der Lage, Probleme durch Nachdenken zu lösen.
Sigma 3: ist in der Lage, sich Experimente auszudenken, aus denen neue Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden können.
Sigma 4: ist in der Lage, theoretische Arbeiten mit originellen Gedankengängen zu verfassen, aus denen neue Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden können.
Sigma 5: ist vermutlich in der Lage, einen ganzen neuen Wissenschaftszweig alleine zu begründen.
Sigma 6: ist vermutlich in der Lage, eine logisch kohärente Theorie darüber, wie die Welt funktioniert ("Theory of Everything"), zu entwickeln.

Diese kurzen Beschreibungen "very much seem to make sense", meiner bescheidenen Meinung nach.

Donnerstag, 22. März 2018

Some remarks on the subject of the promotion of gifted students

When someone seems gifted, many think it does him good to cover him up with teaching material because they believe that it would be necessary to know much to give birth to original thoughts. That's not true. It is enough to give gifted people access to documents, books and the Internet so that they can choose for themselves what they need or are interested in.

Learning by heart is not a creative activity. You can creatively process knowledge, but you don't have to learn it by heart. If you think you can encourage talented people by forcing them to learn by heart, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Nor do I think it is right to ask those who seem particularly clever to study a particular subject, for example medicine or physics. As far as physics is concerned, it was for me a school subject like any other, no more and no less interesting than geography or history. The fact that I wrote my own little textbook on medical physics at the beginning of my medical studies shows that I was not completely uninterested in the subject. But I'm glad I didn't study physics. It was bad enough my father made me go to med school. I prefer to have a relatively secure regular income and enough free time in which I can pursue my own interests.

Translated with

Einige Bemerkungen zum Thema Begabtenförderung

Wenn jemand begabt zu sein scheint, neigen viele, die es gut meinen, dazu, ihn mit Lehrstoff zudecken zu wollen, weil sie glauben, dass es notwendig wäre, viel zu wissen, um originelle Gedanken zu gebären. Das stimmt nicht. Es genügt, Begabten den Zugang zu Unterlagen zu gewähren, zu Büchern und zum Internet, so dass sie sich selbst heraussuchen können, was sie brauchen oder sie interessiert.

Auswendig lernen ist keine kreative Tätigkeit. Wohl kann man Wissen kreativ verarbeiten, aber dazu braucht man es nicht auswendig zu lernen. Wer glaubt, man könnte Begabte fördern, indem man sie zwingt, auswendig zu lernen, ist auf dem Holzweg.

Ich finde es auch nicht richtig, von denen, die besonders klug zu sein scheinen, ein bestimmtes Studienfach zu verlangen, zum Beispiel Medizin oder Physik. Was die Physik betrifft, war sie für mich ein Schulfach wie jedes andere, nicht mehr und nicht weniger interessant wie Geografie oder Geschichte. Dass ich zu Beginn meines Medizinstudiums ein eigenes kleines Lehrbuch über Medizinische Physik verfasst habe, zeigt, dass ich an der Materie nicht ganz desinteressiert war. Aber ich bin froh, dass ich nicht Physik studiert habe. Es war schon schlimm genug, dass mein Vater wollte, dass ich Medizin studiere. Lieber bin ich froh, dass ich mit meinem Beruf ein relativ sicheres regelmäßiges Einkommen und ausreichend Freizeit habe, in der ich meinen eigenen Interessen nachgehen kann.

Above-average intelligence - what it enables people to do

The posting of the blogger from South Africa inspired me to think for myself about how to describe the different levels of above-average intelligence. Based on various things I have read over time, as well as introspection and observation, I would suggest the following:

One standard deviation above average (about 15.87% of the population)
Most university graduates fall into this level. This means that it is possible at this level, with the appropriate motivation, to acquire knowledge from books independently. For practical things, such as arithmetic, a lesson may be needed. In addition, it should essentially be possible to apply the knowledge acquired during studies in professional practice, even if, in my experience with academics, this could sometimes be called into question.

Two standard deviations above average (about 2.28% of the population)
Graduates of the most demanding courses (mathematics, physics, chemistry, medicine, philosophy) are mostly in this range, as are members of the world's largest high-intelligence association and active demosceners. If someone's talent, for example for computer programming, is identified in time and the person in question is constantly working with great ambition to develop his or her skills in this field, someone can develop into an extremely capable programmer (or graphic artist, musician, etc.). I estimate that even the world's leading demoscene artists will mostly be in this area.

Three standard deviations above average (approximately 0.14% of the population)
This is where most Nobel Prize winners are located. On the one hand, this suggests that such a talent enables you to achieve such good results in your career and studies that it is possible to make a career and attain a leading position in research. On the other hand, these people should also be strong and able to integrate into the scientific community and gain recognition through them. It could be possible that such a high talent rarely occurs enough that such a gifted person will most likely produce findings that are indeed earth-shattering. In addition, this level may be sufficient to become an expert in several areas where there are no or only small overlaps.

Four standard deviations above average (approximately 0.003% of the population)
Occasionally I score in this range in intelligence tests. It is difficult to imagine someone who is apparently more talented than most Nobel Prize winners. After all, the Nobel Prize is considered by many to be the highest that can be achieved in life. In this respect it is also understandable that relatively little is to be found in the literature about adults in this range. It can be assumed that ingenious theorists such as Einstein, Gödel or von Neumann were in this range. Perhaps such a high level of intelligence is necessary to recognize connections that remain hidden from almost all other people, but can be logically explained, which makes it possible to develop revolutionary theories. In contrast, the scientists at the previous level are more likely to have earned their laurels with empirical-experimental work.

Five standard deviations above average (approximately 0.00003% of the population)
Only one person among 3.5 million reaches this level. I have never reached such a value in an intelligence test so far, my best value was just a bit below that. I have no idea to what extent people on this level differ from those on the previous one and what achievements such people are capable of in contrast to less gifted people.

Six standard deviations above average (approximately 0.0000001% of the population)
Such an intelligence level is reached only by one person under a billion. As far as I know, the same applies here as I wrote about the previous level. Christopher Langan, the inventor of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe", is said to have an intelligence quotient in this range.

In a nutshell, one could say:

About two thirds of the population belong to the group Sigma 0, one in six to Sigma -1 or even further below the average. On the other hand, one in six achieves at least Sigma 1 and thus has the potential to successfully complete university studies without major difficulties. One in fifty reaches Sigma 2, including most mathematicians, physicists, chemists, physicians and philosophers, as well as especially skilled programmers, graphic artists, and musicians. Every three hundredth would have the potential for scientific work at Nobel Prize level, although Sigma 3 is more likely to be empirical-experimental work. Only one in thirty thousand people reaches Sigma 4 and is thus, according to his potential, an ingenious theorist of the kinds of Einstein, Gödel or von Neumann. Finally, Sigma 5 and Sigma 6 are so rare that it is difficult to determine how these people differ from the lower levels.

Translated with

Überdurchschnittliche Intelligenz - Wozu sie Menschen befähigt

Das Posting des Bloggers aus Südafrika hat mich angeregt, mir selbst Gedanken darüber zu machen, wie man die verschiedenen Stufen überdurchschnittlicher Intelligenz beschreiben könnte. Basierend auf verschiedenen Dingen, die ich im Laufe der Zeit gelesen habe, sowie auf Introspektion und Beobachtung würde ich folgendes vorschlagen:

Eine Standardabweichung über dem Durchschnitt (ungefähr 15,87% der Bevölkerung)
In diese Niveaustufe fallen die meisten Hochschulabsolventen. Das bedeutet, dass es auf dieser Stufe bei entsprechender Motivation möglich ist, sich selbstständig Wissen aus Büchern anzueignen. Für praktische Dinge, wie etwa Rechnen, mag vielleicht noch ein Unterricht vonnöten sein. Es sollte zudem im Wesentlichen möglich sein, das im Studium erlernte Wissen auch in der beruflichen Praxis anzuwenden, auch wenn man das meinen Erfahrungen mit Akademikern nach teilweise in Zweifel ziehen könnte.

Zwei Standardabweichungen über dem Durchschnitt (ungefähr 2,28% der Bevölkerung)
Absolventen der anspruchsvollsten Studiengänge (Mathematik, Physik, Chemie, Medizin, Philosophie) liegen meistens in diesem Bereich, ebenso Mitglieder des weltgrößten Hochintelligenzvereins sowie aktive Demoszener. Wenn bei jemandem in diesem Bereich rechtzeitig ein Talent, zum Beispiel für Computerprogrammierung, festgestellt wird und die betreffende Person beständig mit großem Ehrgeiz an der Entwicklung seiner Fähigkeiten auf diesem Gebiet arbeitet, kann sich so jemand zu einem äußerst fähigen Programmierer (oder auch Grafiker, Musiker etc.) entwickeln. Ich schätze, dass auch die weltweit führenden Demoszener meistens in diesem Bereich liegen werden.

Drei Standardabweichungen über dem Durchschnitt (ungefähr 0,14% der Bevölkerung)
In diesem Bereich liegen die meisten Nobelpreisträger. Das lässt zum einen vermuten, dass es eine solche Begabung einen befähigt, in Beruf und Studium derart gute Leistungen zu erbringen, dass es möglich ist, Karriere zu machen und eine führende Position in der Forschung zu erlangen. Zum anderen dürften diese Leute auch im sozialen Bereich stark und in der Lage sein, sich in die "scientific community" zu integrieren und durch sie Anerkennung zu erfahren. Es könnte sein, dass eine so hohe Begabung selten genug vorkommt, dass ein derart Begabter bei entsprechender Beschäftigung mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit Erkenntnisse produzieren wird, die in der Tat weltbewegend sind. Zudem könnte es sein, dass bereits diese Niveaustufe dafür ausreicht, um auf mehreren Gebieten, die keine oder nur kleine Schnittmengen miteinander aufweisen, Experte zu werden.

Vier Standardabweichungen über dem Durchschnitt (ungefähr 0,003% der Bevölkerung)
Gelegentlich schneide ich in Intelligenztests in diesem Bereich ab. Es ist schwierig, sich jemanden vorzustellen, der offenbar begabter ist als die meisten Nobelpreisträger. Schließlich gilt vielen der Nobelpreis als das Höchste, was man im Leben erreichen kann. Insofern ist auch verständlich, dass in der Literatur relativ wenig über Erwachsene in diesem Bereich zu finden ist. Es ist anzunehmen, dass geniale Theoretiker wie Einstein, Gödel oder von Neumann in diesem Bereich lagen. Möglicherweise ist eine derart hohe Intelligenz nötig, um Zusammenhänge zu erkennen, die fast allen anderen Menschen verborgen bleiben, aber logisch erklärt werden können, was es ermöglicht, revolutionäre Theorien zu entwickeln. Im Unterschied dazu werden sich die Wissenschaftler, die der vorherigen Niveaustufe angehören, ihre Lorbeeren wohl eher mit empirisch-experimentellen Arbeiten verdient haben.

Fünf Standardabweichungen über dem Durchschnitt (ungefähr 0,00003% der Bevölkerung)
Diese Niveaustufe erreicht nur ein Mensch unter 3,5 Millionen. Einen entsprechenden Wert habe ich in einem Intelligenztest bis jetzt noch nie erreicht, mein bester Wert lag knapp darunter. Ich habe keine Ahnung, inwiefern sich Menschen auf dieser Stufe von denen auf der vorigen unterscheiden und zu welchen Leistungen solche Leute im Unterschied zu weniger Begabten fähig sind.

Sechs Standardabweichungen über dem Durchschnitt (ungefähr 0,0000001% der Bevölkerung)
Eine solche Intelligenzhöhe soll sogar nur ein Mensch unter einer Milliarde erreichen. Hierfür gilt nach meinem Wissensstand das gleiche, was ich auch über die vorherige Niveaustufe geschrieben habe. Angeblich soll Christopher Langan, der Erfinder des "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe", einen Intelligenzquotienten in diesem Bereich haben.

Kurz zusammengefasst, könnte man sagen:

Etwa zwei Drittel der Bevölkerung gehören zur Gruppe Sigma 0, jeder Sechste zu Sigma -1 oder noch weiter unter dem Durchschnitt. Auf der anderen Seite erreicht jeder Sechste zumindest Sigma 1 und hätte damit das Potenzial, ein Hochschulstudium ohne größere Schwierigkeiten erfolgreich abzuschließen. Jeder Fünfzigste erreicht Sigma 2, darunter die meisten Mathematiker, Physiker, Chemiker, Mediziner und Philosophen sowie besonders fähige Programmierer, Grafiker und Musiker. Jeder Dreihundertste hätte das Zeug zu wissenschaftlichem Arbeiten auf Nobelpreisniveau, wobei es sich im Bereich Sigma 3 eher um empirisch-experimentelle Arbeiten handeln dürfte. Nur einer von dreißigtausend Menschen erreicht Sigma 4 und ist damit, dem Potenzial nach, ein genialer Theoretiker vom Schlage eines Einstein, Gödel oder von Neumann. Sigma 5 und Sigma 6 schließlich sind so rar, dass es schwierig ist anzugeben, wodurch sich diese Menschen von den niedrigeren Stufen unterscheiden.

Mittwoch, 21. März 2018

Meaning of IQ Test Scores - Genius Range

156 to 172
Genius. Most exceed the average postgraduate in academic competence - even professors - while still in primary school and probably knew more than their teachers from about grade four. They can and do read philosophy for pleasure well before puberty and can read at the university level before the average person can comprehend a primary reader (that is, "I see a cat"). The smarter Nobel Prize winners and most historical geniuses (people such as Einstein, Hawkins, Byron, Milton, Kant, Newton, Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand) are to be found in this category. They are the source of virtually all of humanity's advances. A common experience with people in this category or higher is that they are not wanted - the masses (including the professional classes) find them an affront of some sort. Fortunately, they are plentiful in absolute numbers - South Africa probably has about 1 500 - so many of them do rise above the envy and hostility.

Usually people tend to overestimate their intellectual capabilities. It rarely happens that they underestimate them.

So why should I be an exception to this rule and make an understatement about my intellectual abilities. If I deliberately state that I am probably not so smart as even some tests say, then, well, that just helps my opponents and enemies who would like to get rid of a nasty competitor.

Please bear one thing in mind: The fact that I sometimes, but not always, obtain IQ scores in the range 156 to 172 - why should it signify or even prove that my "true" IQ is not in that range, but below? Why do some people claim that it is always the lowest score that matches truth most closely?

I did know Karl Popper's epistemology as a toddler and did have the feeling that I was understanding what it was all about. I did easily manage to solve calculus assignments as an eight-year-old high school students are usually confronted with in grade 11. I did teach myself to program computers at the same age, having had nobody in my family nor among my acquaintances who could have helped me. It is not unlikely that some of the literature which I was reading at primary school age was at "university level". In fact I never considered my textbooks for university particularly hard to understand, and definitely not harder than the other stuff I was reading because I was enjoying to do so.

And only God knows what the "academic competence of the average postgraduate" might actually be.

What is bothering me, or at least used to bother me in the past, is the question how rare people with my interests and skills are. I definitely know that far less than 2% of the population are comparable with me. When other people estimate your IQ, it can almost always be taken granted that your actual IQ is higher than that estimation. So when Michael Ferguson estimated my IQ to be 148, my actual IQ is most likely to be considerably higher than that. The only estimation I consider an overestimation is Marco Ripà's estimation of me having an IQ of 172. He probably came up with that value because I was almost on par with Rick Rosner on ENNDT, and since Rick has scored IQ 190+ on some tests, Marco was aware he couldn't give us just a moderately high score. My true IQ is probably somewhere between 148 and 172. The arithmetic mean of these two values is 160 - it is a score that might be safe to assume since I obtained a score of 160 on several tests.

One thing also needs to be considered: What the blog posting I cited contains is descriptions of various levels of intellect. By contrast, an IQ test just measures your performance compared to other probands. So the IQ score an IQ test returns is not necessarily the same thing as the level of intellect described in this blog posting.

Another thing is that the blog posting does not mention the standard deviation the IQ scores provided are based on. Since each range the author writes about is 16 points, I suspect that the scores are SD 16 scores. So the range 124 to 140 is actually 123 to 138, the range 140 to 156 is actually 138 to 153, and the range 156 to 172 is actually 153 to 168 (in terms of SD 15). This makes it very likely that I belong to the highest of these ranges, as I am, for instance, listed with a score of 153 in the Genius Ranking of the World IQ Foundation based on the average performance on several tests.

Why there are hardly any great intellectuals in Austria

The reason why there are no or very few great intellectuals in Austria today is easy to explain:

Today's Austria is dominated by three major parties. When a highly intelligent person deals with the ideologies of these parties, he will usually make a negative judgement. But in order to lead a good life as an intellectual in this country, he is forced to come to terms with the powerful.

This means that either someone who pretends to be an intellectual is in reality a small-minded person who is convinced of the ideas of the big parties because he is too limited to really take a critical look at them. Or he's a hypocrite who doesn't say in public what he really thinks.

Only those who are prepared to risk personal disadvantages by expressing their own thoughts independently of the regime's opinion can be great intellectuals.

I referred primarily to Austria, but on the whole it is nowhere else in this world.

Warum es in Österreich kaum große Intellektuelle gibt

Der Grund, warum es im heutigen Österreich keine oder nur sehr wenige große Intellektuelle gibt, ist einfach zu erklären:

Das heutige Österreich wird von drei großen Parteien beherrscht. Wenn ein hochintelligenter Mensch sich mit den Ideologien dieser Parteien beschäftigt, wird er in der Regel ein negatives Urteil fällen. Um aber als Intellektueller in diesem Lande ein gutes Leben führen zu können, ist er gezwungen, sich mit den Mächtigen zu arrangieren.

Das bedeutet: Entweder ist jemand, der sich als Intellektueller ausgibt, in Wirklichkeit ein Kleingeist, der von den Ideen der Großparteien überzeugt ist, weil er zu beschränkt ist, um sich mit ihnen wirklich kritisch auseinanderzusetzen. Oder aber er ist ein Heuchler, der in der Öffentlichkeit nicht das sagt, was er sich wirklich denkt.

Nur wer bereit ist, persönliche Nachteile zu riskieren, indem er seine eigenen Gedanken unabhängig von der Meinung des Regime zu äußern, kann ein großer Intellektueller sein.

Ich habe mich in erster Linie auf Österreich bezogen, im Großen und Ganzen ist es aber nirgendwo auf dieser Welt anders.

Know Thy Audience

The most difficult thing about writing, IMHO, is to correctly predict what feelings and thoughts your sentences will evoke in the reader. That is something that requires insight into human nature, and you cannot get it just by sitting in your dark chamber and practicing to write.

In this context: I am flabbergasted at how much many people are influenced by political propaganda and seem to believe in it. There might be social mechanisms behind that, such as people being afraid of losing their jobs unless they express the "right" political views. I might have been too naive assuming that we are living in liberal democracies and can speak our minds without risking anything.

Dienstag, 20. März 2018

The Genius of Uwe Rohr

Today I thought about why my deceased friend and mentor Dr. Uwe Rohr insisted in being regarded as a genius and what his ingenious achievement was.

If one studies the literature on isoflavones, one will read that isoflavones have a similar effect in the human organism as the adiols. Uwe, on the other hand, has claimed that isoflavones lead to the conversion of stress hormones into immunity hormones, where the adiols belong to the immunity hormones. This means that Uwe interpreted the same phenomenon that other scientists have observed differently, but Uwe's explanation is also logical. Such an own interpretation of research results is quite an ingenious achievement, provided that the own interpretation is at least as logical.

If Uwe expected me to develop a computer model for him that proves that increasing the concentration of the adiols also increases other immune hormones, this is only half the battle. The proof that isoflavones do not simply have the same effect as the adiols, but that they do so indirectly by converting stress hormones into adiols, would have to be provided experimentally.

Translated with

Das Genie des Uwe Rohr

Heute bin ich durch Nachdenken darauf gekommen, warum mein verstorbener Freund und Mentor Dr. Uwe Rohr darauf Wert legte, als Genie angesehen zu werden, bzw. worin seine geniale Leistung bestand.

Wenn man die Literatur zu Isoflavonen studiert, so wird man darin lesen, dass Isoflavone im menschlichen Organismus eine ähnliche Wirkung wie die Adiole entfalten. Uwe hat hingegen behauptet, dass Isoflavone dazu führen, dass Stresshormone in Immunitätshormone umgewandelt werden, wobei die Adiole zu den Immunitätshormonen zählen. Das bedeutet, dass Uwe dasselbe Phänomen, das auch andere Wissenschaftler beobachtet haben, anders als diese interpretiert hat, wobei aber auch Uwes Erklärung logisch ist. Eine solche eigene Interpretation von Forschungsergebnissen ist durchaus eine geniale Leistung, sofern die eigene Interpretation mindestens ebenso logisch ist.

Wenn Uwe von mir erwartet hat, dass ich für ihn ein Computermodell entwickle, welches beweist, dass durch die Erhöhung der Konzentration der Adiole auch andere Immunitätshormone erhöht werden, so ist das aber nur die halbe Miete. Der Nachweis seiner Ansicht, dass Isoflavone nicht einfach dieselbe Wirkung wie die Adiole entfalten, sondern dass sie dies auf indirekte Art und Weise tun, indem sie Stresshormone in Adiole umwandeln, müsste experimentell erbracht werden.

A comment on economic liberalism

Since the subject of economic liberalism has just been discussed again, a remark from an interested layman:

For me, one reason for supporting the liberal movement was that I did not think it would do the state any good if the national debt continued to grow. Eventually they will have to be repaid sometime. With the other parties I could not see any serious efforts to reduce the mountain of debt.

From the state's point of view, public debt has been particularly problematic since we have the euro, because the state has now been deprived of the possibility of pulling itself out of the affair by printing banknotes. However, it should be noted that, from the citizens' point of view, printing banknotes would be a bad thing anyway, because the increase in the money supply would lead to an increase in inflation. The euro is therefore forcing us to exercise budgetary discipline - an advantage from a liberal point of view.

If a businessman now writes that he would like to have an "economic liberal" party, he will primarily mean a party that serves his own interests. Of course, it would be instructive to discuss more with businesspeople to find out what their real needs and ideas of an "economic liberal" policy would be. Since I myself am only an employee and not even active in a commercial profession, I cannot provide any information on this and can only make speculations myself. For me, in any case, economics is only one aspect of liberalism, and I also warn against confusing economic liberalism with "politics that serves the interests of economic operators". Because it could also be that a businessperson craves state support - but that would not be in the spirit of liberalism.

Translated with

Eine Bemerkung zum Thema Wirtschaftsliberalismus

Da in einem Forum soeben wieder über das Thema Wirtschaftsliberalismus diskutiert worden ist, eine Bemerkung eines interessierten Laien in Sachen Ökonomie:

Für mich bestand ein Grund, die liberale Bewegung zu unterstützen, darin, dass ich der Meinung bin, dass es dem Staat nicht gut tut, wenn die Staatsschulden immer weiter wachsen. Schließlich werden sie irgendwann zurückgezahlt werden müssen. Bei den übrigen Parteien konnte ich keine ernsthaften Bestrebungen erkennen, den Schuldenberg abzubauen.

Staatsschulden sind aus Sicht des Staates vor allem problematisch, seit wir den Euro haben, weil der Staat nun der Möglichkeit beraubt wurde, sich durch das Drucken von Banknoten aus der Affäre zu ziehen. Dabei ist aber zu beachten, dass das Drucken von Banknoten aus Sicht der Bürger ohnehin eine schlechte Sache wäre, weil es durch die Geldmengenausweitung zu einer Zunahme der Teuerung käme. Der Euro zwingt uns also zur Budgetdisziplin - aus liberaler Sicht ein Vorteil.

Wenn nun ein Wirtschaftstreibender schreibt, dass er gerne eine "wirtschaftsliberale" Partei hätte, so wird er damit in erster Linie eine Partei meinen, die seinen eigenen Interessen dient. Natürlich wäre es lehrreich, vermehrt mit Wirtschaftstreibenden zu diskutieren, um zu erfahren, was eigentlich ihre Bedürfnisse und Vorstellungen einer "wirtschaftsliberalen" Politik wären. Da ich selbst nur Angestellter und auch nicht im kaufmännischen Bereich tätig bin, kann ich hierzu keine Hinweise liefern und selbst allenfalls Mutmaßungen anstellen. Für mich ist Wirtschaft jedenfalls nur ein Aspekt von Liberalismus, und zudem warne ich davor, Wirtschaftsliberalismus mit "Politik, die den Interessen der Wirtschaftstreibenden dient" zu verwechseln. Denn es könnte auch sein, dass ein Wirtschaftstreibender nach staatlichen Förderungen lechzt - das wäre aber nicht im Sinne des Liberalismus.

Montag, 19. März 2018

Why I am not so excited about AI

I have been asked why I am not so excited about Artificial Intelligence. Well, the fact is that AI has made tremendous progress since the beginning of the decade and there have been many reports about the successes of certain AI applications, such as the game Go. However, these successes are mainly due to techniques that allow to "squeeze" and "stretch" the data in order to overcome the problem of linear separability, which has rendered strong AI impossible for a long time. To achieve real Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which is what futurists such as Tegmark and Kurzweil are talking about, yet another revolution is needed. It may be that one of the thousands of aspiring computer scientists who are into AI will bring upon this revolution, but I would not be sure about that. Most of them are just careerists that follow trends.

Freitag, 16. März 2018

The Synthesis of Metaphysics and Jungian Personality Theory - Addendum I

Claus Volko: The Synthesis of Metaphysics and Jungian Personality Theory (2018)

I have vastly extended the scope of this article. Addendum I contains another hypothesis regarding the purpose of sleep, explains why there must also be some kind of "metabolism" involving the psyche and the brain apart from what medical science knows about the primary metabolism involving the body and the brain, provides a sound explanation - as a logical consequence of the things written before - what psychosis (schizophrenia) and bipolar disorder are and why these exceptional states of mind occur, and, finally, even draws a synthesis with the medical-scientific work I have conducted together with my late friend and mentor Dr. Uwe Rohr. Enjoy reading!

Bachelorstudium der Theoretischen Medizin

Unter Einbeziehung einiger philosophischer Fächer, die derzeit im Medizinstudium nicht vorgesehen sind, schlage ich nun folgenden Studienplan für ein Bachelorstudium der Theoretischen Medizin vor:

Erstes Studienjahr: Philosophische und Naturwissenschaftliche Grundlagen

1. Semester
- VO + SE Medizinische Metaphysik
- SE Persönlichkeitstheorie

2. Semester
- VO + UE Naturwissenschaftliche Grundlagenfächer: Physik, Chemie, Biologie für Mediziner
- SE Erkenntnistheorie für Mediziner

Zweites Studienjahr: Bau und Funktionsweise des Gesunden Menschen

3. Semester
- VO + UE Anatomie und Physiologie
- SE Medizinische Soziologie

4. Semester
- VO + UE Mikroskopische Anatomie und Histologie
- SE Medizinische Psychologie

Drittes Studienjahr: Funktionsweise des Gesunden und Kranken Menschen

5. Semester
- VO + UE Biochemie (Stoffwechsel und Genetik)
- SE Endokrinologie

6. Semester
- VO + SE Funktionelle Pathologie und Immunologie
- SE Medizinische Mikrobiologie

Viertes Studienjahr: Grundlagen der Klinischen Medizin

7. Semester
- VO + SE Pharmakologie und Toxikologie
- UE Erste Hilfe

8. Semester
- VO + UE Medizinische Neurowissenschaften und Psychiatrie
- SE Bachelorarbeit

Das achtsemestrige Studium sollte insgesamt 240 ECTS-Punkte umfassen, davon sollten 40 ECTS-Punkte auf freie Wahlfächer entfallen. Die Pflichtfächer umfassen also pro Semester 25 ECTS-Punkte. Davon sollten 12 ECTS-Punkte auf die Hauptvorlesung entfallen, 6 ECTS-Punkte auf die begleitende Übung bzw. das begleitende Seminar und 7 ECTS-Punkte auf das in Form einer Übung oder eines Seminars zu lehrende Nebenfach.

Anschließend könnte man wahlweise ein naturwissenschaftliches orientiertes Masterstudium anschließen, das auf eine Laufbahn in der Forschung vorbereitet, oder ein klinisch orientiertes Masterstudium, das als Qualifikation für eine Facharztausbildung reichen sollte. Dieses klinisch orientierte Masterstudium könnte wie folgt aussehen:

Fünftes Studienjahr: Klinische Medizin

9. Semester
- VO Innere Medizin
- VO Chirurgie
- VO Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe
- VO Kinderheilkunde
- VO Radiologie

10. Semester
- VO Dermatologie und Venerologie
- VO Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde
- VO Augenheilkunde
- VO Gerichtliche Medizin
- VO Zahnheilkunde

Sechstes Studienjahr: Klinisch-Praktisches Jahr und Diplomarbeit

Das Studium würde, sofern es möglich sein sollte, diesen Studienplan zu implementieren, wie gehabt mit dem Titel "Dr. med. univ." abschließen. An dieses Studium würde dann die praktische Ausbildung zum Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin oder Facharzt anschließen.

Donnerstag, 15. März 2018

The Synthesis of Metaphysics and Jungian Personality Theory

Claus Volko: The Synthesis of Metaphysics and Jungian Personality Theory (2018)

My latest paper. A debate on Facebook about uploading the brain's contents to a computer has made me think and this has resulted in this paper which might be of interest for some of you, especially if you are into metaphysics or into Jungian Personality Theory. Enjoy reading!

Mittwoch, 14. März 2018

No, I've never been an atheist!

Turns out that I actually have never been an atheist. I have just confused "rejection of traditional religion" with atheism.

The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A few comments from a beginner

After re-reading "An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics" and starting to read "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory", I must say the following:

The claims that can be read e.g. at Wikipedia that Christopher Langan uses overcomplicated language and introduces too many neologisms are wrong. On the contrary, the language of the former paper is very clear, and I expect the language of the paper I am reading now to be the same. It is true that Christopher Langan uses a couple of terms which are uncommon in today's colloquial language and also hardly ever appear in modern scientific literature, such as "syndiffeonic", "conspansive" or "telic causation", but I would like to point your attention to one thing: My native language is not English, my native language is German. I had to learn ALL English words by writing them down into a vocabulary book and repeatedly studying the words, trying to memorize them as much as I could. As you see my English is pretty good for a non-native speaker, and therefore I do not think too much is demanded from students of the CTMU if I politely ask them to write down the words they do not understand in a vocabulary book themselves, look up their meanings and study them. Rejecting the CTMU just because of difficulties understanding some words is a sign of intolerable laziness and ignorance.

The basic idea that there is a formalism by which a language can be mapped onto a universe and vice versa, thus making the language and the universe it describes logically equivalent, is clearly explained and easy to understand for a reasonably intelligent person, especially if this person has a background in theoretical computer science, automata theory and formal languages as I do.

I am looking forward to learning more about the CTMU by reading the original paper from 2002, which I have just started.

Also, Christopher Langan employs advanced concepts such as Cartesian Dualism in his reasoning, which usually only university graduates (of some particular majors such as philosophy) are to be expected to understand. This, however, just shows his concept mastery - he is obviously anything but a layman expressing his naive ideas about the world. IMHO, it is a sign of great intellect not only to know some scholarly concepts from literature but also to be able to apply them and make use of them in one's own reasoning.

Adulthood and Personal Growth

As strange as it may sound, my first thirty years can be considered a vastly extended childhood, which is not my own fault but my parents' fault, who simply did not grant me the rights eighteen-year-olds usually have here in the West. I am a grown-up more or less only since my father died in December 2013, two months after my thirtiest birthday, and more precisely since fall 2016, when my mother retired and started a new relationship, which had the effect that I finally began to live in my four own walls.

Throughout my vastly extended childhood, I have mostly occupied myself with the needs of others, or what I believed would serve others' interests (and in fact did not). It is highly significant that after my father died, I only released one issue of the Hugi Magazine (in June 2014), and probably this will also remain the last one. At long last, Hugi was serving nobody's purpose, neither my own nor other people's. The only one who profited from Hugi was my father since it meant that I was occupied for all my spare time and he did not have to think about leisure activities for me.

It says very much about my father's attitude when he commented on me reading about Myers-Briggs and the Jungian function theory at age twenty and participating in the Ludum Dare game development competitions at age twenty-four with the words: "Now you are doing things which people usually do when they are fifteen years old." It is true that usually people do these things at a younger age than I did, but it is his fault: After all, it was him who insisted on me making Hugi on a regular basis, starting to work on a new issue right after completing the current one, and who did not appreciate me using the Internet for other purposes than for conducting research for my magazine. He did not let me grow personally. At age eighteen, I was mentally still a twelve-year-old, as instead of investing in my personal growth, I had invested all my time since then in Hugi.

It is actually a relief for me that nobody is really showing interest in reading yet another issue of Hugi one day, so I do not have any pressure to work on one at all. There is nothing I have to resist against. I am free.

Montag, 12. März 2018

I am not an atheist after all

I posted a variation of my previous blog posting to a theist group at Facebook:
As there are discussions about atheism versus theism in this group on a regular basis, and as it seems some people in here think that all atheists are bad people (and apparently also that all atheists share the same views), I would like to pose the following question:
As a child I came up with a religion of my own which, although it does not require a classical god figure, at least assumes the existence of "divine powers".
Does this make me a theist or an atheist?
The first reply I received was:
In my opinion, it makes you a theist. And it’s not that atheists are bad (tho stupid), it’s that they are amoral.
My reaction:
I think your reasoning is sensible. What has made me think about this has been Christopher Langan's statement about morality requiring an ontology. I perceive myself as a highly moral person and when pondering over this a bit, I arrive at the conclusion that this is due to my childhood belief in the two antagonstic divine forces of life and death and that everybody has to decide which side to take. My deep respect for all living things comes because I decided to side with life as a child. My morality is rooted in ontology, indeed.
So, it seems I am actually not an atheist after all. I should acknowledge that and not let me further deceive myself by labels none of which really applies to me.

Religious Faith

Since the number of discussions about religion on Facebook has been growing again lately (perhaps also because I have been hanging out in theist forums for a few days now):

I am by no means opposed to religious beliefs as such, I am only opposed to dogmatism. Everyone is free to believe in whatever he believes, as long as he does not impose this faith on anyone else. Moreover, his actions must be rational. Religious faith does not justify mischief, certainly not those in which people are harmed.

In my case, it may not be that easy to classify me as theist or atheist, because as a child I have come up with a religion of my own which, although it does not require a classical god figure, at least assumes the existence of "divine powers".

Translated with

Religiöser Glaube

Da in letzter Zeit wieder die Diskussionen zum Thema Religion auf Facebook zugenommen haben (vielleicht auch deswegen, weil ich mich seit einigen Tagen in Theisten-Foren herumtreibe):

Ich lehne religiösen Glauben als solchen keineswegs ab, ich lehne lediglich Dogmatismus ab. Jedem steht frei, woran auch immer zu glauben, solange er diesen Glauben niemand anderem aufzwingt. Außerdem muss sein Handeln rational sein. Religiöser Glaube rechtfertigt keinen Unfug, schon gar nicht solchen, bei dem Menschen zu Schaden kommen.

In meinem Fall ist es möglicherweise gar nicht so leicht, mich eindeutig als Theisten oder Atheisten zu klassifizieren, weil ich mir ja als Kind eine eigene Religion ausgedacht habe, die zwar ohne eine klassische Gottgestalt auskommt, aber zumindest von der Existenz "göttlicher Kräfte" ausgeht.

Bachelorstudium der Medizin

Es mag manchen der Mitlesenden schon zum Hals heraushängen, aber ich habe den Entwurf eines Studienplans für ein Bachelorstudium der Medizin noch einmal so modifiziert, dass daraus ein Studium würde, das einigermaßen meinen Interessen entsprochen hätte.

1. Semester
- VO + UE Chemie für Mediziner
- VO + UE Physik für Mediziner
- VO + SE Zellbiologie und Genetik für Mediziner

2. Semester
- VO + UE Anatomie und Physiologie
- VO + UE Mikroskopische Anatomie und Histologie
- VO + UE Biochemie für Mediziner

3. Semester
- VO + SE Funktionelle Pathologie
- VO + SE Immunologie
- VO + UE Medizinische Mikrobiologie

4. Semester
- VO + SE Pharmakologie
- VO + SE Toxikologie
- VO + SE Endokrinologie

5. Semester
- VO + SE Psychologie für Mediziner
- VO + SE Medizinische Soziologie
- VO + PR Psychiatrie

6. Semester
- VO + PR Neurologie
- SE Bachelorarbeit
- Freie Wahlfächer

Donnerstag, 8. März 2018

Conservatives and Liberals

Many theoreticians think of terms such as "conservative" and "liberal" in terms of some kind of doctrine, such as that the Conservatives want to uphold existing social hierarchies and leave privileged privileges to the privileged while liberals advocate social advancement and socialists want to make everyone equal. However, it must be borne in mind that these terms mean quite different, tangible things in practice:

Anyone under the knot of a conservative must wear a shirt and jacket, like our Chancellor. Many people find this repulsive for aesthetic reasons. In addition, a conservative must follow the Roman Catholic religion, celebrate Christmas and Easter and ideally go to church every Sunday and pray in the evening and before lunch. Many people find this repugnant for personal and ideological reasons. Furthermore, a conservative must marry the first woman he likes and have children with her, because premarital sex is a taboo and sex is only allowed for reproduction.

These alone are reasons for me to be a liberal!

Ideally, Liberals are the only ones who tell no one how to dress and how to live their lives!

In today's world this is often forgotten!

Konservative und Liberale

Viele Theoretiker denken bei Begriffen wie "konservativ" und "liberal" an irgendwelche Lehren, etwa davon, dass die Konservativen bestehende gesellschaftliche Hierarchien aufrecht erhalten und den Privilegierten ihre Privilegien lassen wollen, während Liberale für sozialen Aufstieg eintreten und Sozialisten alle gleichmachen wollen. Dabei muss man aber bedenken, dass diese Begriffe in der Praxis noch ganz andere, handfeste Dinge bedeuten:

Wer unter der Knute eines Konservativen steht, muss Hemd und Sakko tragen, wie unser Bundeskanzler. Das finden viele aus ästhetischen Gründen abstoßend. Außerdem muss ein Konservativer der römisch-katholischen Religion folgen, Weihnachten und Ostern feiern und idealerweise jeden Sonntag in die Kirche gehen und abends sowie vor dem Mittagessen beten. Das finden viele aus persönlichen sowie aus weltanschaulichen Gründen abstoßend. Ferner muss ein Konservativer die erste Frau, die ihm gefällt, heiraten und mit ihr Kinder zeugen, denn Sex vor der Ehe ist ein Tabu und Sex darf nur der Fortpflanzung dienen.

Das allein sind schon Gründe für mich, ein Liberaler zu sein!

Im Idealfall sind die Liberalen die einzigen, welche niemandem vorschreiben, wie er sich zu kleiden und wie er sein Leben zu führen hat!

In der heutigen Zeit vergisst man das oft!

The power of the teacher

A teacher can expect his student to perform the required services.

However, a teacher cannot expect a student to develop the personality of that student as the teacher imagines.

Some teachers have not yet realized this!

Die Macht des Lehrers

Ein Lehrer kann von seinem Schüler erwarten, dass dieser die von ihm geforderten Leistungen erbringt.

Ein Lehrer kann von seinem Schüler aber nicht erwarten, dass sich die Persönlichkeit dieses Schülers so entwickelt, wie sich der Lehrer das vorstellt.

Das haben manche Lehrer noch nicht eingesehen!

Four classes of people in relation to their attitude to a regime

First, the upper class is the class of rulers.

The second class is the class of those who benefit from the regime without having power in it. They can be divided into two subclasses: the subclass of those who are convinced of the regime and the subclass of those who are critical of the regime.

The third class is the broad mass of the dominated.

The fourth class is the class of the regime's enemies who are persecuted by the regime.

Translated with

Mittwoch, 7. März 2018

Vier Klassen von Menschen in Bezug auf ihre Haltung zu einem Regime

1. Die oberste Klasse ist die Klasse der Machthaber.

2. Die zweite Klasse ist die Klasse derjenigen, die vom Regime profitieren, ohne darin die Macht zu haben. Man kann sie in zwei Teilklassen unterteilen: in die Teilklasse derjenigen, die vom Regime überzeugt sind, und in die Teilklasse jener, die dem Regime kritisch gegenüberstehen.

3. Die dritte Klasse ist die breite Masse der Beherrschten.

4. Die vierte Klasse ist die Klasse der Feinde des Regimes, die vom Regime verfolgt werden.