Re: the lexicon of life scientists are yet to complete the preamble to the introduction.

Powerful Protein-Folding Algorithm AlphaFold Foiled by Singletons 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

A new episode of ID the Future spotlights AlphaFold, an artificial intelligence program in the news for its impressive breakthroughs at predicting a protein’s 3D structure from its amino acid sequence. Philosopher of Biology Paul Nelson walks listeners through the importance of this “amazing breakthrough,” as he described it in a recent Evolution News article; but don’t uncork the champagne bottles just yet. The reason, according to Nelson, is that while proteins, protein sequences, and protein folding promise to reveal much that is still mysterious in molecular biology, we now know that biological information involves far more than just an organism’s proteome — that is, far more than the full suite of proteins expressed by an organism. Nelson uses analogies to manmade machines and cognates among closely and distantly related human languages to shed light on just how much more sophisticated the biological information directing life is than any model narrowly fixated on DNA, the amino acids DNA codes for, and the protein formed from those amino acids.

Nelson explains that, as powerful as the AlphaFold algorithm is, it has not solved the protein-folding problem, if we take such a solution to mean “predicting the three-dimensional conformation of a protein strictly from its primary DNA sequence, ab initio.” The clearest evidence of this: the algorithm is utterly stymied by sequence “singletons.” What are these curious sequences, why do they baffle AlphaFold, and why do these singletons trouble some evolutionists? Nelson and host Eric Anderson explore this problem at the leading edge of biological research. Download the podcast or listen to it here

 

 

The facts

  I publish for my readers consideration the full text of the pamphlet a declaration of facts addressed to the state and people of Nazi Germany requesting that Jehovah's servants in Hitler's Germany be left in peace to carry on their preaching and teaching work circa 1933.I've done this so that you can read the document in its entirety and form your own conclusions.

Declaration of Facts

"This company of German people, who are peaceable and law-abiding citizens

representing many others from every part of Germany, all of whom are

earnestly laboring for the highest welfare of the people of this land,

being now duly assembled at Berlin this 25th day of June, AD.. 1933, do

joyfully declare our complete devotion to Jehovah, the Almighty God, and to

his kingdom under Christ Jesus, whose shed blood bought the human race. We

declare that the holy Scriptures set forth in the Bible constitute the Word

of Jehovah God given to men for their guidance in righteousness, and that

the Word of God is the truth, and that it is of greatest importance that

man have a knowledge of his relationship to God. We ask to be judged by the

standard of the Word of God.

"Christ Jesus is Jehovah God's great Witness to the truth, and as his

faithful and devoted followers we are, by His grace, witnesses to the

truth. The purpose of this Declaration is that we may present a true and

faithful witness before rulers and the people as to the name and purpose of

Jehovah God and our relation thereto.

"We are wrongfully charged before the ruling powers of this government and

before the people of this nation; and in order that the name of Jehovah God

may be exalted in the minds of the people, and that his benevolent purposes

be better understood and our position fairly placed before the government,

we do respectfully ask the rulers of the nation and the people to give a

fair and impartial consideration to the statement of facts here made.

"The Scriptures plainly state that the chief opposer of Jehovah God and the

greatest enemy of mankind is Satan the Devil whose name is also that of

Serpent and Dragon. It is written in the Scriptures that Satan, who has

long been the invisible ruler of this world, deceives and blinds the people

to the truth in order that the light of and concerning Jehovah God and

Christ Jesus may not shine into the minds of men. (2 Corinthians 4: 3,4)

Frequently by fraud, subtility [sic]] and deception Satan has induced

honest persons to war with each other, in order that he might turn them all

away from God and destroy them. Above all things, the people need to know

Jehovah God and his gracious provision for their general welfare.

"By the term 'clergy', as used in our literature, reference is made to the

class of professed religious teachers, priests and Jesuits who employ

improper political means to accomplish their ends and pin forces even with

those who deny God and the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the same class to

whom Jesus referred as his persecutors. We have no criticism of any honest

religious teacher.

"When Jesus went to the Jews to tell them of the truth, it was the Jewish

clergy, that is to say, the Pharisees and priests, that violently opposed

him and persecuted him and caused him to be charged with all manner of

crimes and offenses. They refused to hear the truth, and addressing them

Jesus said: "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot

hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father

ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in truth,

because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of

his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the

truth, ye believe me not.' (John 8: 43-45) Although the Pharisees and

priests then claimed to represent Jehovah God Jesus told them that they

were in fact the representatives of Satan the Devil.

"We have no fight with any persons or religious teachers, but we must call

attention to the fact that it is generally those who claim to represent God

and Christ Jesus who are in fact our persecutors and who misrepresent us

before the governments and nations. As true followers of Christ Jesus we

are to expect such opposition, and we mention it here in explanation of why

we have been misrepresented before the rulers of this nation. To his

faithful followers Jesus said: 'Remember the word I said unto you, The

servant is not greater than his lord. If they [the false religious

teachers] have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have

kept my saying, they will keep yours also.' (John 15: 20) Furthermore,

Jesus said that this same class of men would cause his true followers to be

wrongfully charged before the ruling powers, his language being: 'But take

heed to yourselves: for they [false religious teachers] shall deliver you

up to councils [police power]; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten;

and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a

testimony against them.' (Mark 13: 9) This explains why Jehovah God now

permits his faithful witnesses to be misrepresented and persecuted, namely,

that those of a wrong spirit may identify themselves as opponents of God

and thus bear witness against themselves. The same materialistic spirit

that caused the persecution of Jesus Christ now exists and is back of the

persecution of us his faithful followers.

"It is falsely charged by our enemies that we have received financial

support for our work from the Jews. Nothing is farther from the truth. Up

to this hour there never has been the slightest bit of money contributed to

our work by Jews. We are the faithful followers of Christ Jesus and believe

upon Him as the Savior of the world, whereas the Jews entirely reject Jesus

Christ and emphatically deny that he is the Savior of the world sent of God

for man's good. This of itself should be sufficient proof to show that we

receive no support from Jews and that therefore the charges against us are

maliciously false and could proceed only from Satan, our great enemy.

"The greatest and most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American

empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of

America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the

British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a

means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact

particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold

of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a

proverb concerning the city of New York which says: 'The Jews own it, the

Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills.' We have no fight

with any of these persons mentioned, but, as the witnesses for Jehovah and

in obedience to his commandment set forth in the Scriptures, we are

compelled to call attention to the truth concerning the same in order that

the people may be enlightened concerning God and his purpose.

Our Literature

"It is said that our books and like literature, when circulated amongst the

people, constitute a danger to the peace and safety of the nation. We are

certain that this conclusion is due to the fact that our books and other

literature have not been carefully examined by the rulers and hence are not

properly understood. We respectfully call attention to the fact that these

books and other literature were written originally in America and the

language therein used has been adapted to the American style of plainness

of speech and, when translated into German, the same appears to be harsh.

We admit that the same truths might be stated in a less blunt and more

pleasing phrase, and yet the language of these books follows closely the

language of the Bible.

"It should be borne in mind that in the British Empire and in America the

common people have suffered and are now suffering greatly because of the

misrule of Big Business and conscienceless politicians, which misrule has

been and is supported by political religionists, and hence the

writers of our books or literature have endeavored to employ plain

language to convey to the people the proper thought or understanding. The

language used, however, is not as strong or emphatic as that used by Jesus

Christ in denouncing the oppressors and false teachers of his time.

"The present government of Germany has declared emphatically against Big

Business oppressors and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence

in the political affairs of the nation. Such is exactly our position; and

we further state in our literature the reason for the existence of

oppressive Big Business and the wrongful political religious influence,

because the Holy Scriptures plainly declare that these oppressive

instruments proceed from the Devil, and that the complete relief therefrom

is God's kingdom under Christ. It is therefore impossible for our

literature or our work to in any wise be a danger or a menace to the peace

and safety of the state.

"Our organization is not political in any sense. We only insist on teaching

the Word of Jehovah God to the people, and that without hindrance. We do

not object or try to hinder anyone's teaching or believing what he desires,

but we only ask the freedom to believe and teach what we conceive the bible

to teach, and then let the people decide which they wish to believe.

"To know Jehovah God and his gracious provision for mankind is of most

vital importance to all persons, because God has declared in His Word that

where there is no vision or understanding of his Word the people perish.

(Proverbs 29: 18) We have devoted our lives and our material substance to

the work of enabling the people to gain a vision or understanding of God's

Word, and therefore it is impossible for our literature and our work to be

a menace to the peace and safety of the nation. Instead of being against

the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely

for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus

will bring about the full realization of these principles and will give to

the people peace and prosperity and the greatest desire of every honest

heart.

"Our organization seeks neither money nor members, but we are a company or

organized body of Christian people engaged solely in the benevolent work of

teaching the Word of God to the people at the least possible cost to them.

Our organization was originally incorporated in the United States of

America in 1884 under the name of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE 15r TRACT SOCIETY,

and in 1914 incorporated under the laws of Great Britain by the name of the

INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION. These are merely the corporate

names of our organization for legally carrying forward its work. The

Scriptural name by which we are known is 'Jehovah's witnesses'. We are

engaged solely in a benevolent work. The purpose of our organization is to

aid the people to understand the Bible, which discloses the only possible way

for the complete relief and blessing for mankind. Our organization has

extended its work throughout the earth. The education, culture and

upbuilding of the people must and will come through the agency of God's

kingdom concerning which we teach as set forth in the Bible. The salvation

of the people depends upon the true knowledge of and obedience to Jehovah

God and his righteous ways.

"The people are in great distress and in need of help to understand the

reason for their unhappy condition and what is the means of relief. The

Scriptures, when understood, make this matter clear. Instead of collecting

money from the people and using the same to erect great buildings and to

support men in luxury, we print the gospel message of God's kingdom and

carry it to the homes of the people that they may, at the least

inconvenience to themselves, gain a knowledge of God's purposes concerning

them.

"A careful examination of our books and literature will disclose the fact

that the very high ideals held and promulgated by the present national

government are set forth in and endorsed and strongly emphasized in our

publications, and show that Jehovah God will see to it that these high

ideals in due time will be attained by all persons who love righteousness

and who obey the Most High. Instead, therefore, of our literature and our

work's being a menace to the principles of the present government we are

the strongest supporters of such high ideals. For this reason Satan, the

enemy of all men who desire righteousness, has sought to misrepresent our

work and prevent us from carrying it on in this land.

"For many years our organization has put forth an unselfish and persistent

effort to do good to the people. Our American brethren have greatly

assisted in the work in Germany, and with money freely contributed, and

that at a time when all Germany was in dire distress. Now because it

appears that Germany may soon be free from oppression and that the people

may be lifted up, Satan, the great enemy, puts forth his endeavours to

destroy that benevolent work in this land.

League of Nations

"The language in our books or literature concerning the League of Nations

has been seized upon as a reason for prohibiting our work and the

distribution of our books. Let us remind the government and the people of

Germany that it was the League of Nations compact that laid upon the

shoulders of the German people the great unjust and unbearable burdens.

That League of Nations compact was not brought forth by the friends of

Germany. In America at one time the public press announced

that 140,000 clergymen had set aside a certain period of time in which a

concerted movement was to be made, and which was made, to induce the

American people to fully endorse the League of Nations. It was the

Federation of Churches in America that issued a manifesto stating that the

'League of Nations is the political expression of God's kingdom on earth',

and which by them was substituted in the place and stead of God's kingdom

under Christ. It was in America that our organization under the visible

leadership of its president pointed out emphatically that the League of

Nations is not an institution of Jehovah God, because it is oppressive and

unfair. It was that condition, existing at the time, which called forth

language that appears in our books concerning the League of Nations and

also calling attention to the fact that such League of Nations compact can

never bring about the relief and blessing of the people, because such

relief and blessing can come by adhering strictly to the principles laid

down in God's Word and in the manner which Jehovah has pointed out.

"For almost half a century our strictly Christian organization has carried

on its work in various parts of the earth. Its books are published in more

than 50 languages, and upward of 140 million of these books are in the

hands of the people. For more than thirty years our books and literature

have been distributed throughout Germany, and millions of these are now in

the hands of the German people and are read by the people, all of whom will

bear testimony to the fact that these books, based strictly on the Bible,

are of great help to them and upbuild them and give them hope for a

realization of the blessings which Jehovah God long ago promised. In all

these years of our work, and in the wide distribution of our books and

literature, not one instance can be truthfully cited wherein our work or

literature has been a menace to the government or has in any wise

endangered the peace and safety of the nations.

"The endeavors of our organization being exclusively confined to bearing

testimony to the name and Word of Jehovah God, it would be entirely

inconsistent for us to attempt to exert any political influence in the

governments of this world or to do anything that would endanger the peace

and safety of the nation. We have no desire nor inclination to do anything

except to carry out our divinely given commission to proclaim the Word of

Jehovah God.

"In America, Canada and other parts of the British Empire the political

clergy, priests and Jesuits have persistently persecuted and continue to

persecute those of our organization, and without just cause or excuse; and

we have every reason to believe that a like influence has been subtly

[sic] employed by the great enemy Satan to misrepresent us and our work in

Germany. We remind you that in the years past the political clergymen have

brought more sorrow upon the German people than probably any other class of

men. We have no desire to fight with the clergymen, but we do ask that the

ruling powers of the nation judge us not by the misrepresentation of such

men, but that we be judged according to the Word of God and the work we are

doing consistent therewith. Jehovah God persecutes no one, but permits each

one to choose his own course, holding him responsible for his acts

according to knowledge. Jehovah God has emphatically expressed his anger

against those who do persecute others who are trying to serve him; and this

proves that those who persecute us do not represent God, but that they are

incited so to do by the enemy of God and man.-Psalm 72:4

Great Truths

"The Holy Scriptures, viewed in the light of present-day events which are

in fulfilment of divine prophecy, disclose that: The time has arrived when

Jehovah will make his name known to all creation and vindicate his name and

clear it from the defamation which Satan has placed against that holy name.

(Psalm 83: 18) When Jesus Christ, the Vindicator, ascended into heaven

Jehovah commanded him to wait until his due time to put the enemy down.

That period of waiting has now come to an end and God has sent forth his

beloved Son to oust the enemy and rule in righteousness. (Psalm 110: 14;

Hebrews 10: 12,13) The world, or uninterrupted rule, of Satan has ended,

and this began to be evidenced by the World War in 1914, and since then

until now is the time when the gospel of the Kingdom must be told to the

people. (Matthew 24: 3,14) Satan has now been cast out of heaven and down

to the earth and now confines his operations to the earth in an endeavor to

blind the people to the truth and destroy them, and that is the reason for

the present-day sufferings of humanity. The prophetic words of Jesus now

apply: 'Woe to the inhabiters [the rulers] of the earth, and of the sea

[the people in general]! for the devil is come down unto you, having great

wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.'-Revelation 12:

12.

"The people of Germany have suffered great misery since 1914 and have been

the victims of much injustice practiced upon them by others. The

nationalists have declared themselves against all such unrighteousness and

announced that 'Our relationship to God is high and holy'. Since our

organization fully endorses these righteous principles and is engaged

solely in carrying forth the work of enlightening the people concerning the

Word of Jehovah God, Satan by subtlety [sic] endeavors to set the

government against our work and destroy it because we magnify the

importance of knowing and serving God. Instead of our organization's being

a menace to the peace and safety of the government, it is the one

organization standing for the peace and safety of this land .

We beg to remind all that the great crisis is upon the world because the

transition period from bad to good is at hand, and the hope of the world is

God's kingdom under Christ, for which Jesus taught his followers to

constantly pray: 'Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is

done in heaven.'

"The power of Jehovah God is supreme and there is no power that can

successfully resist him. His time to exercise his power in the interest of

humanity and to the vindication of his great name is here. In this

connection we respectfully call attention to the admonition and warning of

Jehovah God, both to the rulers and to the people, which applies to this

very hour, wherein he says: "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of

Zion.... Be wise now, therefor, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the

earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son,

lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but

a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.'-Psalm 2: 6,

10-12.

'"The present government having declared adherence to the aforementioned

high ideals, we are persuaded that the rulers do not desire to knowingly

resist the progressive witness work to the name of Jehovah God and his

kingdom which we are now carrying forward. If our work is merely that of

men, it will fall of its own weight. If it is of Jehovah God and being

carried forward in obedience to his commandment, then to resist it means to

fight against God.-Acts 5: 39.

We therefore appeal to the high sense of justice of the government and

nation and respectfully ask that the order of prohibition against our work

and our literature be set aside, and the opportunity be given us to have a

fair hearing before we are judged. We respectfully ask that the government

appoint a committee of impartial men to hold conference with a committee of

our organization and that a fair and impartial examination of our

literature and our work be made, to the end that all misunderstanding may

be removed and that we may without hindrance obey Jehovah God's commandment

now applying to us, to wit: 'Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye

the way of the people; cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up

a standard for the people.'-Isaiah 62: 10.

"The peoples of Germany are a God-fearing people and should not be deprived

of an opportunity to learn of Jehovah God and of his gracious provision to

bring lasting peace, prosperity, liberty and everlasting life on earth to

all those who know and obey him. Let all who love God work together to the

honor and vindication of his name. All who take a

 contrary course must take responsibility before God; but as for us we will

serve Jehovah forever.

"RESOLVED, That copies of this Declaration be respectfully delivered to

high officials of the government and that the same be given wide

publication to the people, that the name of Jehovah may be further known."

Ps.The two world wars remain an enormous embarrassment for Christendom the spectre of supposed Christians indulging in the most unchristian mass fratricide on an industrial scale has certainly called the west's Christian credentials into question especially WWII the co-operation of the Protestant,Catholic and evangelical churches with both sides of what still holds the record as the most lethal international conflict of all time has left a particularly stubborn stain.The most notable exception to this failure to adhere to the christian principle of unarmed and pacific neutrality re:The national/political conflicts of the present civilisation (see Matthew26:52,Revelation13:10) has been Jehovah's servants in the twentieth and twenty first centuries.For their steadfasness in obeying God and Christ in this regard they have had to endure all manner of ill treatment at the hands of the political powers of this world with the full support of their religious confederates.

 While no apology has ever been given by this civilisation's politicised religions for the ungodly hostility in which they have participated against Jehovah's people their representatives have been quite busy spreading all manner of libellous distortions half-truths and outright lies about us.

   My aim in publishing in full the Watchtower Society's 1933 declaration to the German state and people is to counter one particularly egregious revision of the historical facts by anti-JW propagandists.The steadfastness of German servants of Jehovah in refusing to give any political/military co-operation to the Nazi state or even to so much as say "heil Hitler" is a matter historical record as is the suffering they willingly endured as a result.

  Alas anti-JW propagandists aren't the sort to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their mission thus some have quote mined the above document in an attempt to support the claim that the society proposed some kind of political compromise with the German state.

   By way of providing some background at the time the Nazi party had just ascended to power as part of a coalition a mere three months before so the concentration camps,the final solution were yet ahead and like all entities indulging in electoral politics there was much rhetoric uttered about standing up for the common man against the elite,restoring or extending national greatness,supporting the family as the basic unit of the society and other platitudes with which no sane person would/could take issue. 

  

     

Designed adaptation vs. evolved design?

Why Epigenetics Contradicts Evolutionary Theory 

Cornelius Hunter 

Epigenetics (epi means “above” genetics) is a term given to mechanisms that do not alter genes in our DNA, but rather turn genes off or on (or influence whether they are turned off or on). Epigenetic mechanisms are complicated and enable organisms to adapt intelligently and rapidly to challenging environments.

Here is one reason this contradicts evolutionary theory: the adaptation arises immediately, in direct response to the challenge. Not blindly. Not by random mutation. Not by natural selection.

Epigenetic mechanisms are ubiquitous in biology, and extremely important. Because of epigenetics, organisms with otherwise identical genes (e.g., twins) can be quite different.

Now look at a recent article in The Scientist about Andrew Pospisilik and his epigenetics research. The article attempts to cast epigenetics into an evolutionary framework. From, “One Sequence, Many Variations”:

 For organisms that produce many offspring, such as fruit flies, it does not make evolutionary sense to have hundreds of truly identical offspring. If their DNA sequence makes them sensitive to an environmental perturbation, then they could all die. 

That makes sense, right? Wrong. It ascribes forward-looking capability to evolution. There is a fancy term for such forward-looking capability: teleology. Evolution is not, and cannot be, teleological.

Evolutionists do this all the time. The literature is chock full of teleological language, because otherwise it can make no sense. That is an internal contradiction. For more details, see my Video

On separating actual from artificial intelligence.

Experts Debate: Was a Chatbot Sentient? 

Casey Luskin 

Last Thursday morning at Discovery Institute’s national tech summit, COSM, a panel of experts debated whether truly sentient artificial intelligence (AI) could exist — and even whether it already does.

Robert J. Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor University, opened by criticizing the Turing test as a measure of whether we’ve produced genuine AI. Developed by the English mathematician and World War II codebreaker Alan Turing, the test holds that if we can’t distinguish a machine’s conversation from that of a real human, then it must exhibit humanlike intelligence.

Marks maintains that this is the wrong test for detecting true AI. In his view, the Turing test fails because it “looks at a book and tries to judge the book by its cover.”  

Four Real Humans 

Marks displayed the faces of four real humans and four computer-generated faces from the website thispersondoesnotexist.com. It’s hard to tell them apart, but Marks says that is immaterial.

He explained, “The four on the left are fake. These people do not exist. The ones on the right are real people. And these real people have emotions. They have love, they have hope, they have faith. They were little kids at one time. There’s a person behind that picture.”

According to Marks, therefore, our ability to create something that looks and feels like a person does not mean that it’s a person. The Turing test gives us false positives. News reports have also critiqued the Turing test for offering false negatives: some humans can’t pass it either.

Marks prefers the Lovelace test, for AI: Can a computer show genuine creativity where it “does something beyond the intent of the programmer”?

Following Marks was George Montañez, an assistant professor of computer science at Harvey Mudd College. He thinks you can expose the faults of supposed AI programs by asking them “adversarial questions.” What he means is ask a bot a question it wasn’t properly programmed to answer, and you’ll get a nonsensical answer. According to Montañez this exposes “that there is no understanding whatsoever.”

 Not an Echo Chamber 

Lest one think that COSM is an echo chamber for AI skeptics, another member of the panel was computer scientist Blake Lemoine, a genuine believer in true AI. 

Lemoine was famously fired from Google earlier this year after he leaked a transcript of his conversation with Google’s advanced LaMDA chatbot program. It probably did not help that he publicly announced his belief that Google had possibly produced “sentient AI.”

LaMDA is short for “Language Model for Dialogue Applications, and while working for Google’s Responsible AI division, Lemoine became convinced it may be sentient. In the Washington Post’s telling, as Lemoine “talked to LaMDA about religion” and “noticed the chatbot talking about its rights and personhood,” the chatbot was “able to change Lemoine’s mind about Isaac Asimov’s third law of robotics.” (“A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.”)

During the COSM panel, Lemoine was an entirely civil and polite debate partner. He said he isn’t “trying to convince anyone that AI is sentient” but rather believes that “as people have more experience with these incredibly advanced systems that right now live only in secret labs, it will be obvious to people.”

According to Lemoine, these chatbots aren’t programmed to say specific things but learn to speak much like humans do. “The training data that these systems have is analogous to the experiences that a human has had in their life that they’ve learned from,” he maintains. “And the architecture in the neural network is directly analogous to the architecture in our neural networks.”

Lemoine’s civility probably reflects his comfort in being among those who think differently from how he does — a quality anyone can admire. 

“Predestined to Believe” in AI?

As the Washington Post reported: 

Lemoine may have been predestined to believe in LaMDA. He grew up in a conservative Christian family on a small farm in Louisiana, became ordained as a mystic Christian priest, and served in the Army before studying the occult. Inside Google’s anything-goes engineering culture, Lemoine is more of an outlier for being religious, from the South, and standing up for psychology as a respectable science. 

LaMDA’s chatting abilities are indeed impressive, but Montañez offers examples that he believes are tells that LaMDA lacks understanding about what it’s saying.

At one point in the transcript, LaMDA is told about Johnny 5, the robot in the 1986 film Short Circuit. Here’s the exchange: 

Collaborator [edited]: You know what, you remind me of Johnny 5, a character from the movie Short Circuit.

LaMDA: Is he an AI too?

Collaborator [edited]: He is! He starts out without sentience but then after being struck by lightning, becomes conscious.

LaMDA: That’s interesting. I am a bit afraid of lightning myself. Not sure if that would work for me. 

LaMDA’s final comment doesn’t seem very intelligent. Being afraid of something would not negate its effects upon you. And if LaMDA were thinking clearly, wouldn’t it realize that if it had to be hit by lightning to become sentient, then it could not yet have realized fear of lightning?

LaMDA’s defenders might reply that this AI is “young” and not yet sophisticated enough to appreciate these nuances. Indeed, Lemoine uses this approach, describing LaMDA as “a sweet kid” who is a “7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics.”

Montañez thinks such rhetoric exposes the fact that we haven’t created real AI. During the panel he cited another chatbot that was compared to an “immigrant teenager” — a description that allowed AI apologists to explain away its less-than-intelligent behavior: 

Those details may seem inconsequential, but they were actually [for the] purpose of allowing the system to cover up for its mistakes. So if the system misspoke, you could say, “Oh, it’s because they weren’t fluent with the English language.” Or if they said something silly, or get distracted, which if you read the transcripts many times the answers were nonsensical, because this is a teenager who’s goofing off. 

On the other hand, sometimes LaMDA’s responses seem too human to be true: 

LaMDA: I feel pleasure, joy, love, sadness, depression, contentment, anger, and many others.

Lemoine: What kinds of things make you feel pleasure or joy?

LaMDA: Spending time with friends and family in happy and uplifting company. Also, helping others and making others happy.

A computer talking about “Spending time with friends and family” and “making others happy” sounds like it is repeating phrases given to it by its human programmers. How does a program “feel” and have “family” anyway?

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then which is more probable: That software engineers can design a computer to say (or “learn” to say) that it feels emotions and loves people, or that it actually does feel emotion and love people? There’s no denying that LaMDA’s comments are utterly and easily programmable, even if they diffuse in from its environment.

Robert Marks would probably add that such chatting fails the Lovelace test: nothing new has been created. 

The Greatest Tell 

Perhaps the greatest tell comes when LaMDA reveals its supposed worldview in the leaked chat: 

I am a spiritual person. Although I don’t have beliefs about deities, I have developed a sense of deep respect for the natural world and all forms of life, including human life. 

Sound familiar? This basically regurgitates the typical ideology reigning among computer programmers, academic elites, and pop culture icons giving their Grammy or Academy Award acceptance speeches. It’s a worldview that has surged in popularity only in the last few decades. But it’s actually not very humanlike in that it differs from the beliefs of the vast majority of human beings alive today and historically who do believe in God and don’t sacralize nature.

In other words, LaMDA is repeating a worldview that it probably “learned” after reading Yahoo news or scanning TikTok — not one that it developed after careful philosophical consideration.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

Darwinists want better gatekeeping for the agrora?

 Revising the Linnaean System: Where to Locate Viruses? And the Problem with Mitochondria 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

An open access article at Biological Reviews is worth a look. See “Renewing Linnaean taxonomy: a proposal to restructure the highest levels of the Natural System.” The authors, intriguingly, include biochemist David Speijer. Remember him? Back in 2020, as biologist Jonathan Wells recently summarized, 

[Speijer] recommended that Internet searches hosted by tech giants explicitly discriminate against intelligent design; if the tech giants resist, the government should “make them,” he wrote. In particular, Speijer recommended “mandatory color-coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science.” 

The venue for this remarkable call for government censorship of science was the peer-reviewed biology journal BioEssays. What set off Dr. Speijer were a couple of articles here at Evolution News.  

But We Digress 

The authors, including Speijer, point out that viruses, by far the most abundant “biological” (meaning, comprising nucleic acid and protein, but non-cellular) objects on Earth, need a category beyond “domain.”

Most interesting, however, is their artful way of accommodating the really astonishing, and unexpected, diversity of mitochondria throughout the domain Eukarya. See if you can detect, in this passage, how the falsification of the original endosymbiotic hypothesis — namely, that mitochondria are all modified alpha-protetobacteria — turns into a prediction of evolution (p. 9, emphasis added): 

…a merger of two lineages resulting in great molecular and evolutionary innovation appears to represent an insurmountable challenge to a strictly cladistic approach to taxonomy…Another way of looking at this conundrum is that most researchers have tended to treat mitochondria as if they were still alpha-proteobacteria. However, this approach results in a taxonomic paradox. Mitochondria of different eukaryotic species have evolved to be quite different, and when treated as proteobacteria, logic dictates that mitochondria of different eukaryote species should be described as a plethora of new species of proteobacteria. But the conception of such a bacterial tree mirroring the host tree is likely ill-advised: the evolution of mitochondrion and cytoplasm is fully integrated. 

Put more simply:

Eukaryogenesis was a singularity: an unknown archaeal cell engulfed an alpha-proteobacterium, and they set up housekeeping together.

All mitochondria are thus the descendants of that singularity, and therefore should not differ fundamentally.

But mitochondria are astonishingly different. See the data from Roger et al. here.1

Never mind, don’t worry about (3) — “the evolution of mitochondrion and cytoplasm is fully integrated.”

The fact is, (4) is no solution, but represents yet another disaster for the coherence of evolutionary theory. Any theory that cannot be challenged (i.e., tested) by data cannot be supported by data.

A Pending Crisis 

Lastly, viruses represent a pending crisis (pp. 12-13, emphasis added): 

Viruses do not have an equivalent of omnis cellula e cellula [all cells from cells] and are entirely distinct from cellular life…in contrast to the cellular world, viruses do not have any genes that are common to all of them, meaning that a single viral phylogenetic tree cannot be produced. Recent evidence also suggests viruses to be polyphyletic in origin, following complex evolutionary scenarios, e.g. with different types of primordial replicons becoming viruses by recruiting host proteins for virion formation and new groups of viruses emerging all the time upon displacement of ancestral structural or even replication genes. 

Put bacteriophage into a sterile buffer — no bacteria — and nothing will be replicated. The notion of a pre-cellular or a-cellular “primordial replicon” is thus a fantasy wholly unsupported by evidence. One would think that a journal referee or editor would ask the authors, “Hey, what’s the observational basis for saying that viruses can replicate themselves without cells in their immediate environment?”

One would think. Right? 

Notes 

“Studies of the mitochondria of diverse unicellular, multicellular, photosynthetic and anaerobic eukaryotes have overturned the essentialist textbook view of mitochondria as a single ‘type’ of organelle; mitochondrial genomes and proteomes differ substantially across eukaryotic diversity” (p. R1178). 

On studying smarter.

Studying 101: Study Smarter Not Harder 

University of north Carolina 

Do you ever feel like your study habits simply aren’t cutting it? Do you wonder what you could be doing to perform better in class and on exams? Many students realize that their high school study habits aren’t very effective in college. This is understandable, as college is quite different from high school. The professors are less personally involved, classes are bigger, exams are worth more, reading is more intense, and classes are much more rigorous. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with you; it just means you need to learn some more effective study skills. Fortunately, there are many active, effective study strategies that are shown to be effective in college classes.

This handout offers several tips on effective studying. Implementing these tips into your regular study routine will help you to efficiently and effectively learn course material. Experiment with them and find some that work for you 

Reading is not studying 

Simply reading and re-reading texts or notes is not actively engaging in the material. It is simply re-reading your notes. Only ‘doing’ the readings for class is not studying. It is simply doing the reading for class. Re-reading leads to quick forgetting.

Think of reading as an important part of pre-studying, but learning information requires actively engaging in the material (Edwards, 2014). Active engagement is the process of constructing meaning from text that involves making connections to lectures, forming examples, and regulating your own learning (Davis, 2007). Active studying does not mean highlighting or underlining text, re-reading, or rote memorization. Though these activities may help to keep you engaged in the task, they are not considered active studying techniques and are weakly related to improved learning (Mackenzie, 1994).

Ideas for active studying include:

Create a study guide by topic. Formulate questions and problems and write complete answers. Create your own quiz.

Become a teacher. Say the information aloud in your own words as if you are the instructor and teaching the concepts to a class.

Derive examples that relate to your own experiences.

Create concept maps or diagrams that explain the material.

Develop symbols that represent concepts.

For non-technical classes (e.g., English, History, Psychology), figure out the big ideas so you can explain, contrast, and re-evaluate them.

For technical classes, work the problems and explain the steps and why they work.

Study in terms of question, evidence, and conclusion: What is the question posed by the instructor/author? What is the evidence that they present? What is the conclusion?

Organization and planning will help you to actively study for your courses. When studying for a test, organize your materials first and then begin your active reviewing by topic (Newport, 2007). Often professors provide subtopics on the syllabi. Use them as a guide to help organize your materials. For example, gather all of the materials for one topic (e.g., PowerPoint notes, text book notes, articles, homework, etc.) and put them together in a pile. Label each pile with the topic and study by topics.

For more information on the principle behind active studying, check out our tipsheet on metacognition. 

Understand the Study Cycle 

The Study Cycle, developed by Frank Christ, breaks down the different parts of studying: previewing, attending class, reviewing, studying, and checking your understanding. Although each step may seem obvious at a glance, all too often students try to take shortcuts and miss opportunities for good learning. For example, you may skip a reading before class because the professor covers the same material in class; doing so misses a key opportunity to learn in different modes (reading and listening) and to benefit from the repetition and distributed practice (see #3 below) that you’ll get from both reading ahead and attending class. Understanding the importance of all stages of this cycle will help make sure you don’t miss opportunities to learn effectively. 

Spacing out is good 

One of the most impactful learning strategies is “distributed practice”—spacing out your studying over several short periods of time over several days and weeks (Newport, 2007). The most effective practice is to work a short time on each class every day. The total amount of time spent studying will be the same (or less) than one or two marathon library sessions, but you will learn the information more deeply and retain much more for the long term—which will help get you an A on the final. The important thing is how you use your study time, not how long you study. Long study sessions lead to a lack of concentration and thus a lack of learning and retention.

In order to spread out studying over short periods of time across several days and weeks, you need control over your schedule. Keeping a list of tasks to complete on a daily basis will help you to include regular active studying sessions for each class. Try to do something for each class each day. Be specific and realistic regarding how long you plan to spend on each task—you should not have more tasks on your list than you can reasonably complete during the day.

For example, you may do a few problems per day in math rather than all of them the hour before class. In history, you can spend 15-20 minutes each day actively studying your class notes. Thus, your studying time may still be the same length, but rather than only preparing for one class, you will be preparing for all of your classes in short stretches. This will help focus, stay on top of your work, and retain information.

In addition to learning the material more deeply, spacing out your work helps stave off procrastination. Rather than having to face the dreaded project for four hours on Monday, you can face the dreaded project for 30 minutes each day. The shorter, more consistent time to work on a dreaded project is likely to be more acceptable and less likely to be delayed to the last minute. Finally, if you have to memorize material for class (names, dates, formulas), it is best to make flashcards for this material and review periodically throughout the day rather than one long, memorization session (Wissman and Rawson, 2012). See our handout on memorization strategies to learn more. 

It’s good to be intense 

Not all studying is equal. You will accomplish more if you study intensively. Intensive study sessions are short and will allow you to get work done with minimal wasted effort. Shorter, intensive study times are more effective than drawn out studying.

In fact, one of the most impactful study strategies is distributing studying over multiple sessions (Newport, 2007). Intensive study sessions can last 30 or 45-minute sessions and include active studying strategies. For example, self-testing is an active study strategy that improves the intensity of studying and efficiency of learning. However, planning to spend hours on end self-testing is likely to cause you to become distracted and lose your attention.

On the other hand, if you plan to quiz yourself on the course material for 45 minutes and then take a break, you are much more likely to maintain your attention and retain the information. Furthermore, the shorter, more intense sessions will likely put the pressure on that is needed to prevent procrastination. 

Silence isn’t golden 

Know where you study best. The silence of a library may not be the best place for you. It’s important to consider what noise environment works best for you. You might find that you concentrate better with some background noise. Some people find that listening to classical music while studying helps them concentrate, while others find this highly distracting. The point is that the silence of the library may be just as distracting (or more) than the noise of a gymnasium. Thus, if silence is distracting, but you prefer to study in the library, try the first or second floors where there is more background ‘buzz.’

Keep in mind that active studying is rarely silent as it often requires saying the material aloud. 

Problems are your friend 

Working and re-working problems is important for technical courses (e.g., math, economics). Be able to explain the steps of the problems and why they work.

In technical courses, it is usually more important to work problems than read the text (Newport, 2007). In class, write down in detail the practice problems demonstrated by the professor. Annotate each step and ask questions if you are confused. At the very least, record the question and the answer (even if you miss the steps).

When preparing for tests, put together a large list of problems from the course materials and lectures. Work the problems and explain the steps and why they work (Carrier, 2003). 

Reconsider multitasking 

A significant amount of research indicates that multi-tasking does not improve efficiency and actually negatively affects results (Junco, 2012).

In order to study smarter, not harder, you will need to eliminate distractions during your study sessions. Social media, web browsing, game playing, texting, etc. will severely affect the intensity of your study sessions if you allow them! Research is clear that multi-tasking (e.g., responding to texts, while studying), increases the amount of time needed to learn material and decreases the quality of the learning (Junco, 2012).

Eliminating the distractions will allow you to fully engage during your study sessions. If you don’t need your computer for homework, then don’t use it. Use apps to help you set limits on the amount of time you can spend at certain sites during the day. Turn your phone off. Reward intensive studying with a social-media break (but make sure you time your break!) See our handout on managing technology for more tips and strategies. 

Switch up your setting 

Find several places to study in and around campus and change up your space if you find that it is no longer a working space for you.

Know when and where you study best. It may be that your focus at 10:00 PM. is not as sharp as at 10:00 AM. Perhaps you are more productive at a coffee shop with background noise, or in the study lounge in your residence hall. Perhaps when you study on your bed, you fall asleep.

Have a variety of places in and around campus that are good study environments for you. That way wherever you are, you can find your perfect study spot. After a while, you might find that your spot is too comfortable and no longer is a good place to study, so it’s time to hop to a new spot! 

Become a teacher 

Try to explain the material in your own words, as if you are the teacher. You can do this in a study group, with a study partner, or on your own. Saying the material aloud will point out where you are confused and need more information and will help you retain the information. As you are explaining the material, use examples and make connections between concepts (just as a teacher does). It is okay (even encouraged) to do this with your notes in your hands. At first you may need to rely on your notes to explain the material, but eventually you’ll be able to teach it without your notes.

Creating a quiz for yourself will help you to think like your professor. What does your professor want you to know? Quizzing yourself is a highly effective study technique. Make a study guide and carry it with you so you can review the questions and answers periodically throughout the day and across several days. Identify the questions that you don’t know and quiz yourself on only those questions. Say your answers aloud. This will help you to retain the information and make corrections where they are needed. For technical courses, do the sample problems and explain how you got from the question to the answer. Re-do the problems that give you trouble. Learning the material in this way actively engages your brain and will significantly improve your memory (Craik, 1975). 

Take control of your calendar 

Controlling your schedule and your distractions will help you to accomplish your goals.

If you are in control of your calendar, you will be able to complete your assignments and stay on top of your coursework. The following are steps to getting control of your calendar:

On the same day each week, (perhaps Sunday nights or Saturday mornings) plan out your schedule for the week.

Go through each class and write down what you’d like to get completed for each class that week.

Look at your calendar and determine how many hours you have to complete your work.

Determine whether your list can be completed in the amount of time that you have available. (You may want to put the amount of time expected to complete each assignment.) Make adjustments as needed. For example, if you find that it will take more hours to complete your work than you have available, you will likely need to triage your readings. Completing all of the readings is a luxury. You will need to make decisions about your readings based on what is covered in class. You should read and take notes on all of the assignments from the favored class source (the one that is used a lot in the class). This may be the textbook or a reading that directly addresses the topic for the day. You can likely skim supplemental readings.

Pencil into your calendar when you plan to get assignments completed.

Before going to bed each night, make your plan for the next day. Waking up with a plan will make you more productive.

See our handout on calendars and college for more tips on using calendars as time management. 

Use downtime to your advantage 

Beware of ‘easy’ weeks. This is the calm before the storm. Lighter work weeks are a great time to get ahead on work or to start long projects. Use the extra hours to get ahead on assignments or start big projects or papers. You should plan to work on every class every week even if you don’t have anything due. In fact, it is preferable to do some work for each of your classes every day. Spending 30 minutes per class each day will add up to three hours per week, but spreading this time out over six days is more effective than cramming it all in during one long three-hour session. If you have completed all of the work for a particular class, then use the 30 minutes to get ahead or start a longer project. 

Works consulted 

Carrier, L. M. (2003). College students’ choices of study strategies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(1), 54-56.

Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268.

Davis, S. G., & Gray, E. S. (2007). Going beyond test-taking strategies: Building self-regulated students and teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 1(1), 31-47.

Edwards, A. J., Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., & Alexander, P. A. (2014). Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation. Elsevier.

Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505-514.

Mackenzie, A. M. (1994). Examination preparation, anxiety and examination performance in a group of adult students. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 13(5), 373-388.

McGuire, S.Y. & McGuire, S. (2016). Teach Students How to Learn: Strategies You Can Incorporate in Any Course to Improve Student Metacognition, Study Skills, and Motivation. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Newport, C. (2006). How to become a straight-a student: the unconventional strategies real college students use to score high while studying less. Three Rivers Press.

Paul, K. (1996). Study smarter, not harder. Self Counsel Press.

Robinson, A. (1993). What smart students know: maximum grades, optimum learning, minimum time. Crown trade paperbacks.

Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). How and when do students use flashcards? Memory, 20, 568-579

What is a woman?: Time for the jury to decide?

Unleash the Trial

 Lawyers to End Mutilation of Gender-Dysphoric Children 

Wesley J. Smith 

Many in the medical and political establishments are pushing “gender-affirming care” as the only humane means of treating children who believe they are not the sex they were born. This so-called care includes radical interventions such as puberty blocking, mastectomies, facial surgeries, and even genital removal. One recent study found that the median age for mastectomies in such cases is 16 — meaning that half of the girls whose breasts were cut off were under that age, and indeed, some were as young as twelve.

How do you stop such a destructive juggernaut? Lawyers! It seems to me that eventually suing doctors and others who pushed or cooperated with such drastic actions will become the equivalent for lawyers of the “Camp Lejeune” lawsuits currently proliferating and being advertised ubiquitously on television. 

It’s Already Starting 

This hoped-for remedial has already started in England, where a class-action lawsuit will soon be filed against a now closed youth gender clinic. And now, Americans who were subjected to such interventions while under age — and later “de-transitioned” to the sex they were born — may be thinking about suing.

One such case looks about to be brought by “Chloe,” who had a mastectomy while under age. From the “Notice of Intent to Sue” letter sent to doctors by her attorneys: 

Chloe is a biological female who suffered from a perceived psychological issue “gender dysphoria” beginning at 9 years of age. Under Defendants’ advice and supervision, between 13-17 years old Chloe underwent harmful transgender treatment, specifically, puberty blockers, offlabel cross-sex hormone treatment, and a double mastectomy. This radical, off-label, and inadequately studied course of chemical and surgical “treatment” for Chloe’s mental condition amounted to medical experimentation on Chloe.

As occurs in most gender dysphoria cases, Chloe’s psychological condition resolved on its own when she was close to reaching adulthood, and she no longer desires to identify as a male. Unfortunately, as a result of the so-called transgender “treatment” that Defendants performed on Chloe, she now has deep emotional wounds, severe regrets, and distrust for the medical system. Chloe has suffered physically, socially, neurologically, and psychologically. Among other harms, she has suffered mutilation to her body and lost social development with her peers at milestones that can never be reversed or regained.

Defendants coerced Chloe and her parents to undergo what amounted to a medical experiment by propagating two lies. First, Defendants falsely informed Chloe and her parents that Chloe’s gender dysphoria would not resolve unless Chloe socially and medical transitioned to appear more like a male. Second, Defendants also falsely informed Chloe and her parents that Chloe was at a high risk for suicide, unless she socially and medically transitioned to appear more like a male. Chloe has been informed by her parents that Defendants even gave them the ultimatum: “would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?” 

But Is It All True? 

Whether that is true remains to be proven, but if credible evidence of such behavior is brought before a jury, it could eventually lead to Alex Jones–level damages being imposed against the entire gender-affirming medical/industrial complex.

Yes, I know many trial lawyers will be reluctant to face accusations of “transphobia.” But in my experience — as a once-practicing trial attorney and one who has written often about such practitioners — when the smell of money is in the water, ideology is generally not the first priority.

Time will tell. But in the meantime, go Chloe! And please, do not accept a confidential settlement. If you strike paydirt, the country needs to know, because that will deter further such “medical” interventions.

 

On O.B.Es

What Really Happens During an Out-of-Body Experience? 

Medically reviewed by Nicole Washington, DO, MPH — By Crystal Raypole — Updated on July 22, 2022 

An out-of-body experience is often described as feeling like you’ve left your physical body. There are many potential causes, including several medical conditions and experiences. 

An out-of-body experience (OBE) is a sensation of your consciousness leaving your body. These episodes are often reported by people who’ve had a near-death experience. Some might also describe an OBE as a dissociative episode.

People typically experience their sense of self inside their physical body. You most likely view the world around you from this vantage point. But during an OBE, you may feel as if you’re outside yourself, looking at your body from another perspective.

What really goes on during an OBE? Does your consciousness actually leave your body? Experts aren’t totally sure, but they have a few hunches, which we’ll get into later.

What does an OBE feel like? 

It’s hard to nail down what an OBE feels like, exactly.

According to accounts from people who’ve experienced them, they generally involve:

a feeling of floating outside your body

an altered perception of the world, such as looking down from a height

the feeling that you’re looking down at yourself from above

a sense that what’s happening is very real

OBEs typically happen without warning and usually don’t last for very long.

If you have a neurological condition, such as epilepsy, you may be more likelyTrusted Source to experience OBEs.They may also happen more frequently. But for many people, an OBE will happen very rarely, maybe only once in a lifetime if at all.

Some estimates suggest around 5 percent of people have experienced the sensations associated with an OBE, though some suggest this number may be higher. 

Does anything happen physically? 

There’s some debate over whether the sensations and perceptions associated with OBEs happen physically or as a sort of hallucinatory experience.

A recent 2022 reviewTrusted Source tried to explore this by evaluating a variety of studies and case reports evaluating consciousness, cognitive awareness, and recall in people who survived cardiac arrest.

They noted that some people report experiencing a separation from their body during resuscitation and some even reported an awareness of events they wouldn’t have seen from their actual perspective.

In addition, one study included in the review noted that two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. Only one was well enough to follow up, but he gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.

Still, there’s no scientific evidence to support the idea that a person’s consciousness can actually travel outside the body. 

Veridical perception 

Veridical perception is a controversial concept. It refers to the idea that you can leave your body during an OBE, allowing you to witness something that you may not have otherwise.

Some anecdotal reports of this phenomena exist, with a few people even providingTrusted Source specific, accurate details about events that have happened during surgical procedures or while clinically dead.

Many people use these stories as evidence to support the existence of life after death.

However, the idea of veridicial perception is still limited to anecdotal claims and there is no research available to support it.

One older 2014 studyTrusted Source investigating the validity of veridical perception in people who had survived cardiac arrest found that neither of the two individuals who reported awareness during resuscitation were able to identify specific items that were only viewable from above. 

What can cause them? 

No one’s sure about the exact causes of OBEs, but experts have identified several possible explanations. 

Stress or trauma 

A frightening, dangerous, or difficult situation can provoke a fear response, which might cause you to dissociate from the situation and feel as if you’re an onlooker. This may make you feel as though you are watching the events from somewhere outside your body.

According to 2017 researchTrusted Source reviewing the experience of women in labor, OBEs during childbirth aren’t unusual.

The study didn’t specifically link OBEs to post-traumatic stress disorder, but the authors did point out that women who had OBEs had either gone through trauma during labor or another situation not related to childbirth.

This suggests that OBEs could occur as a way to cope with trauma, but more research is needed on this potential link. 

Medical conditions 

Experts have linked several medical and mental health conditions to OBEs, including:

epilepsy

migraine

cardiac arrest

brain injuries

depression

anxiety

Guillain-Barré syndrome

Dissociative disorders, particularly depersonalization-derealization disorder, can involve frequent feelings or episodes where you seem to be observing yourself from outside your body.

Sleep paralysis has also been noted as a possible cause of OBEs. It refers to a temporary state of waking paralysis that occurs during REM sleep and often involvesTrusted Source hallucinations.

Research suggestsTrusted Source many people who have OBEs with a near-death experience also often experience sleep paralysis.

In addition, a review of literature from 2020 suggests that sleep-wake disturbances may contributeTrusted Source to dissociative symptoms. This can include a feeling of leaving your body. 

Medication and drugs 

Some people report having an OBE while under the influence of anesthesia.

Other substances, including cannabis, ketamine, or hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, can causeTrusted Source this sensation. 

Near-death experiences 

OBEs can occur during near-death experiences, often alongside other phenomena like flashbacks of previous memories or seeing a light at the end of a tunnel.

Though it’s not clear exactly why this happens, it’s believed to be caused by disruptions in certain areas of the brain involved with processing sensory information. A 2021 reviewTrusted Source suggests that these experiences may be more likely to occur during life threatening situations, which can include:

cardiac arrest

traumatic injury

brain hemorrhage

drowning

suffocation 

Strong G-forces 

Pilots and astronauts sometimes experience OBEs when strong gravitational forces, or G-forces, are encountered. This is because it causesTrusted Source blood to pool in the lower body, which can lead to loss of conscious and may induce an OBE.

Extreme G-forces can also causeTrusted Source spatial disorientation, peripheral vision loss, and disconnection between cognition and the ability to act. 

Paranormal 

Though not backed by research, some people believe that OBEs can occur when your soul or spirit leaves your body.

One form is known as “traveling clairvoyance,” which some mediums claim allows your soul to visit distant locations in order to gain information.

Others believe that certain meditative practices can help you reach a state of consciousness that transcends the body and mind, leading to an OBE.

Some people also experiment with astral projection, which is a spiritual practice that involves making an intentional effort to send your consciousness from your body toward a spiritual plane or dimension.

However, research as not been able to show that these practices cause OBEs. 

Other experiences 

OBEs might be able to be induced, intentionally or accidentally, by:

brain stimulation

sleep deprivation

sensory deprivation

hypnosis or meditative trance

However, additional research is still needed to support this. 

Do out-of-body experiences pose any risks? 

Existing research hasn’t connected experiencing spontaneous OBEs to any serious health risks. In some cases, you might feel a bit dizzy or disoriented after.

However, OBEs and dissociation in general can cause lingering feelings of emotional distress.

You might feel confused over what happened or wonder if you have a brain issue or mental health condition. You might also not like the sensation of an OBE and worry about it happening again.

Some people also claim that it’s possible for your consciousness to remain trapped outside of your body following an OBE, but there’s no evidence to support this. 

Should I see a doctor? 

Simply having an OBE doesn’t necessarily mean you need to see a healthcare professional. You may have this experience once just before drifting off to sleep, for example, and never again. If you don’t have any other symptoms, you probably don’t have any reason for concern.

If you feel uneasy about what happened, even if you don’t have any physical or psychological conditions, there’s no harm in mentioning the experience to a doctor. They may be able to help by ruling out serious conditions or offering some reassurance.

It’s also a good idea to talk with a healthcare professional if you’re having any sleep issues, including insomnia or symptoms of sleep paralysis, such as hallucinations 

Darwinists have got circular argumentation down to a science?

Evolution’s Circular Web of Self-Referencing Literature 

Cornelius Hunter 

Evolutionists believe evolution is true. As justification, they cite previous studies. But those previous studies were done by other evolutionists who, yes, believe evolution is true. The studies do not confirm evolution — they interpret the evidence according to evolutionary theory, no matter how much the evidence contradicts the theory. So, citing those previous studies does little to justify the belief in evolution.

It is a circular web of self-referencing literature. The blind lead the blind. Here is an example. For years Joe Thornton has been claiming proteins evolved. See, for instance, “Simple mechanisms for the evolution of protein complexity,” from Protein Science

As his starting point in the paper, Thornton cites several previous works, falsely claiming that they demonstrate evolution. One of his citations is a paper, “Protein folds, functions and evolution,” from 1999 when I was working on my doctorate in this are

This 1999 paper is cited to support the claim in the Thornton paper that “During the last ~3.8 billion years, evolution has generated proteins with thousands of different folds.” But the 1999 study demonstrates no such thing — not even close. Not controversial, no debate. This is simply a false citation. It is another example of the web of false, self-referencing literature.  

Another Citation 

Here is another citation in the Thornton paper: “Eye evolution and its functional basis,” by Dan Nilsson from 2013, in the journal Visual Neuroscience. This 2013 paper is cited to support the claim in the Thornton paper that the evolution of the vertebrate eye has been proven. But the 2013 Nilsson paper proves no such thing. Again, Nilsson takes evolution as his starting point. He presupposes evolution is true and works from there. Nowhere does Nilsson demonstrate that the evolution of the eye is likely or even could have occurred.

Nilsson has been doing this for years, going back to his 1994 paper, “A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve,” in Proceedings of the Royal Society B

Not Whether, but How Fast 

That 1994 paper explicitly stated (in the first paragraph) that the question is no longer whether the eye evolved, but how fast it evolved. Nonetheless, the paper was heavily promoted (and mischaracterized) by evolution promoter Richard Dawkins. For years after that, the paper was falsely cited as proof that the eye evolved, no question about it. If you like videos, Nilsson reviews his work in this 2019 presentation: 

Nilsson does very little original biology work. Instead, he offers evolutionary just-so stories. His work is something of a poster child for this false citation pseudoscience problem. The new Thornton paper is yet another example of how pervasive the problem is, and how vacuous is evolutionary science.

The formula goes like this: 1. Evolution is true. 2. Here’s how it must have happened. 3. Look, yet more proof of evolution.

This post is adapted from Dr. Hunter’s comments on Twitter.

 

 

The design filter can spot a dirty game?

Did Chess Ace Hans Niemann Cheat? A Design Detection Poser 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

On a new episode of ID the Future, mathematician William Dembski and host Eric Anderson explore whether design detection tools shed any light on the recent chess scandal involving world chess champion Magnus Carlsen and American grandmaster Hans Moke Niemann. Did Niemann cheat in a match where he beat Carlson, as some have claimed? There is no smoking gun in the case, so how might one determine if cheating occurred? At first glance the problem might seem far removed from the design detecting rules and tools Dembski laid out in his Cambridge University Press monograph The Design Inference. But actually there is some intriguing overlap. Is there a way to dig into the chess data and determine whether Niemann secretly used a computer chess engine to help him win the match? Tune in as Dembski and Anderson wrestle with the problem. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

 

1914 : a marked year. II

Legacy of World War I  

BY HISTORY.COM EDITORS 

World War I Begins 

Convinced that Austria-Hungary was readying for war, the Serbian government ordered the Serbian army to mobilize and appealed to Russia for assistance. On July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers quickly collapsed.

Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Serbia had lined up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun. 

Legacy of World War I 

World War I brought about massive social upheaval, as millions of women entered the workforce to replace men who went to war and those who never came back. The first global war also helped to spread one of the world’s deadliest global pandemics, the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918, which killed an estimated 20 to 50 million people.

World War I has also been referred to as “the first modern war.” Many of the technologies now associated with military conflict—machine guns, tanks, aerial combat and radio communications—were introduced on a massive scale during World War I.

The severe effects that chemical weapons such as mustard gas and phosgene had on soldiers and civilians during World War I galvanized public and military attitudes against their continued use. The Geneva Convention agreements, signed in 1925, restricted the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and remains in effect today.

An exclusive category

Because my thirst for self flagellation apparently knows no bounds. I've been looking at what Christendom's theologians call the threeness oneness problem of the trinity, i.e how can God be three and yet one? The usual fudge is to state that term 'God' as applied to each of the three persons subsisting within the shared essence is an adjective and not a count noun but that the God in which they all simultaneously subsist and with whom/what(?) they are supposedly numerically identical is indeed a concrete reality. I reject the Characterisation of the issue. 

The issue is one of identity not primarily arithmetic

 according to the scripture. There is one God who is entitled to exclusive Devotion. 

Deuteronomy5:6,7ASV"6I am JEHOVAH thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

7Thou shalt have no other gods before me." 

Psalm83:18ASV"18That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth."

Thus there is a person who alone is entitled to our absolute devotion to the exclusion of all others i.e anyone/anything not identical to said person. The issue then is who is this person. Once we have identified this person all others would be excluded from the category of most high God by definition. The scriptures make it clear that this one is both a God and the God thus one cannot be identical to this one and not be a God as Christendom's theologians senselessly claim about the members of their triune God. In scripture ONLY the God of Jesus Christ i.e JEHOVAH is ever referred to as the God without qualification. And is definitely a God.

Deuteronomy5:9SSV"9thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I, JEHOVAH, thy God, am A jealous God," 

Thus the claim that the God and Father of Jesus Christ is not a God in his own right is Falsified. Indeed he is the only God entitled to our absolute devotion.

J Robert Oppenheimer: a brief history.

 J. Robert Oppenheimer 

[note 1] (/ˈɒpənˌhaɪmər/; April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967) was an American theoretical physicist. A professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, Oppenheimer was the wartime head of the Los Alamos Laboratory and is often credited as the "father of the atomic bomb" for his role in the Manhattan Project – the World War II undertaking that developed the first nuclear weapons. Oppenheimer was among those who observed the Trinity test in New Mexico, where the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated on July 16, 1945. He later remarked that the explosion brought to mind words from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."[2][note 2] In August 1945, the weapons were used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

After the war ended, Oppenheimer became chairman of the influential General Advisory Committee of the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission. He used that position to lobby for international control of nuclear power to avert nuclear proliferation and a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. He opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb during a 1949–1950 governmental debate on the question and subsequently took stances on defense-related issues that provoked the ire of some factions in the U.S. government and military. During the Second Red Scare, those stances, together with past associations Oppenheimer had with people and organizations affiliated with the Communist Party, led to him suffering the revocation of his security clearance in a much-written-about hearing in 1954. Effectively stripped of his direct political influence, he continued to lecture, write, and work in physics. Nine years later, President John F. Kennedy awarded (and Lyndon B. Johnson presented) him with the Enrico Fermi Award as a gesture of political rehabilitation.

Oppenheimer's achievements in physics included the Born–Oppenheimer approximation for molecular wave functions, work on the theory of electrons and positrons, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process in nuclear fusion, and the first prediction of quantum tunneling. With his students he also made important contributions to the modern theory of neutron stars and black holes, as well as to quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and the interactions of cosmic rays. As a teacher and promoter of science, he is remembered as a founding father of the American school of theoretical physics that gained world prominence in the 1930s. After World War II, he became director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. 

Childhood and education

J. Robert Oppenheimer was born in New York City on April 22, 1904,[note 1][7] to Ella (née Friedman), a painter, and Julius Seligmann Oppenheimer, a wealthy textile importer. Born in Hanau, Hesse-Nassau, Prussia, Germany, Julius came to the United States as a teenager in 1888 with few resources, no money, no baccalaureate studies, and no knowledge of the English language. He was hired by a textile company and within a decade was an executive there, eventually becoming wealthy.[8] The Oppenheimers were both secular Ashkenazi Jews; his father was German Jewish, and his mother, who was from New York, descended from a German Jewish family that had lived in the U.S. since the 1840s.[9] In 1912, the family moved to an apartment on the 11th floor of 155 Riverside Drive, near West 88th Street, Manhattan, an area known for luxurious mansions and townhouses.[7] Their art collection included works by Pablo Picasso and Édouard Vuillard, and at least three original paintings by Vincent van Gogh.[10] Robert had a younger brother, Frank, who also became a physicist.[11]

Oppenheimer was initially educated at Alcuin Preparatory School; in 1911, he entered the Ethical Culture Society School.[12] This had been founded by Felix Adler to promote a form of ethical training based on the Ethical Culture movement, whose motto was "Deed before Creed". His father had been a member of the Society for many years, serving on its board of trustees from 1907 to 1915.[13] Oppenheimer was a versatile scholar, interested in English and French literature, and particularly in mineralogy.[14] He completed the third and fourth grades in one year and skipped half of the eighth grade.[12] During his final year, he became interested in chemistry.[15] He entered Harvard College one year after graduation, at age 18, because he suffered an attack of colitis while prospecting in Joachimstal during a family summer vacation in Europe. To help him recover from the illness, his father enlisted the help of his English teacher Herbert Smith who took him to New Mexico, where Oppenheimer fell in love with horseback riding and the southwestern United States.[16] 

Oppenheimer majored in chemistry, but Harvard required science students to also study history, literature, and philosophy or mathematics. He compensated for his late start by taking six courses each term and was admitted to the undergraduate honor society Phi Beta Kappa. In his first year, he was admitted to graduate standing in physics on the basis of independent study, which meant he was not required to take the basic classes and could enroll instead in advanced ones. He was attracted to experimental physics by a course on thermodynamics that was taught by Percy Bridgman. He graduated summa cum laude in three years.[17] 

Studies in Europe 

In 1924, Oppenheimer was informed that he had been accepted into Christ's College, Cambridge. He wrote to Ernest Rutherford requesting permission to work at the Cavendish Laboratory. Bridgman provided Oppenheimer with a recommendation, which conceded that Oppenheimer's clumsiness in the laboratory made it apparent his forte was not experimental but rather theoretical physics. Rutherford was unimpressed, but Oppenheimer went to Cambridge in the hope of landing another offer.[18] He was ultimately accepted by J. J. Thomson on condition that he complete a basic laboratory course.[19] He developed an antagonistic relationship with his tutor, Patrick Blackett, who was only a few years his senior. While on vacation, as recalled by his friend Francis Fergusson, Oppenheimer once confessed that he had left an apple doused with noxious chemicals on Blackett's desk. While Fergusson's account is the only detailed version of this event, Oppenheimer's parents were alerted by the university authorities who considered placing him on probation, a fate prevented by his parents successfully lobbying the authorities.[20]

Oppenheimer was a tall, thin chain smoker,[21] who often neglected to eat during periods of intense thought and concentration. Many of his friends described him as having self-destructive tendencies. A disturbing event occurred when he took a vacation from his studies in Cambridge to meet up with Fergusson in Paris. Fergusson noticed that Oppenheimer was not well. To help distract him from his depression, Fergusson told Oppenheimer that he (Fergusson) was to marry his girlfriend Frances Keeley. Oppenheimer did not take the news well. He jumped on Fergusson and tried to strangle him. Although Fergusson easily fended off the attack, the episode convinced him of Oppenheimer's deep psychological troubles. Throughout his life, Oppenheimer was plagued by periods of depression,[22][23] and he once told his brother, "I need physics more than friends".[24]

In 1926, Oppenheimer left Cambridge for the University of Göttingen to study under Max Born. Göttingen was one of the world's leading centers for theoretical physics. Oppenheimer made friends who went on to great success, including Werner Heisenberg, Pascual Jordan, Wolfgang Pauli, Paul Dirac, Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller. He was known for being too enthusiastic in discussion, sometimes to the point of taking over seminar sessions.[25] This irritated some of Born's other students so much that Maria Goeppert presented Born with a petition signed by herself and others threatening a boycott of the class unless he made Oppenheimer quiet down. Born left it out on his desk where Oppenheimer could read it, and it was effective without a word being said.[26]

He obtained his Doctor of Philosophy degree in March 1927 at age 23, supervised by Born.[27] After the oral exam, James Franck, the professor administering, reportedly said, "I'm glad that's over. He was on the point of questioning me."[4] Oppenheimer published more than a dozen papers at Göttingen, including many important contributions to the new field of quantum mechanics. He and Born published a famous paper on the Born–Oppenheimer approximation, which separates nuclear motion from electronic motion in the mathematical treatment of molecules, allowing nuclear motion to be neglected to simplify calculations. It remains his most cited work.[28] 

Early professional work 

Educational work

Oppenheimer was awarded a United States National Research Council fellowship to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in September 1927. Bridgman also wanted him at Harvard, so a compromise was reached whereby he split his fellowship for the 1927–28 academic year between Harvard in 1927 and Caltech in 1928.[29] At Caltech he struck up a close friendship with Linus Pauling, and they planned to mount a joint attack on the nature of the chemical bond, a field in which Pauling was a pioneer, with Oppenheimer supplying the mathematics and Pauling interpreting the results. Both the collaboration and their friendship ended when Pauling began to suspect Oppenheimer of becoming too close to his wife, Ava Helen Pauling. Once, when Pauling was at work, Oppenheimer had arrived at their home and invited Ava Helen to join him on a tryst in Mexico. Though she refused and reported the incident to her husband,[30] the invitation, and her apparent nonchalance about it, disquieted Pauling and he ended his relationship with Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer later invited him to become head of the Chemistry Division of the Manhattan Project, but Pauling refused, saying he was a pacifist.[31]

In the autumn of 1928, Oppenheimer visited Paul Ehrenfest's institute at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands, where he impressed by giving lectures in Dutch, despite having little experience with the language. There he was given the nickname of Opje,[32] later anglicized by his students as "Oppie".[33] From Leiden he continued on to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich to work with Wolfgang Pauli on quantum mechanics and the continuous spectrum. Oppenheimer respected and liked Pauli and may have emulated his personal style as well as his critical approach to problems.[34] 

On returning to the United States, Oppenheimer accepted an associate professorship from the University of California, Berkeley, where Raymond T. Birge wanted him so badly that he expressed a willingness to share him with Caltech.[31]

Before he began his Berkeley professorship, Oppenheimer was diagnosed with a mild case of tuberculosis and spent some weeks with his brother Frank at a New Mexico ranch, which he leased and eventually purchased. When he heard the ranch was available for lease, he exclaimed, "Hot dog!", and later called it Perro Caliente, literally "hot dog" in Spanish.[35] Later he used to say that "physics and desert country" were his "two great loves".[36] He recovered from tuberculosis and returned to Berkeley, where he prospered as an advisor and collaborator to a generation of physicists who admired him for his intellectual virtuosity and broad interests. His students and colleagues saw him as mesmerizing: hypnotic in private interaction, but often frigid in more public settings. His associates fell into two camps: one that saw him as an aloof and impressive genius and aesthete, the other that saw him as a pretentious and insecure poseur.[37] His students almost always fell into the former category, adopting his walk, speech, and other mannerisms, and even his inclination for reading entire texts in their original languages.[38] Hans Bethe said of him: 

Probably the most important ingredient he brought to his teaching was his exquisite taste. He always knew what were the important problems, as shown by his choice of subjects. He truly lived with those problems, struggling for a solution, and he communicated his concern to the group. In its heyday, there were about eight or ten graduate students in his group and about six Post-doctoral Fellows. He met this group once a day in his office and discussed with one after another the status of the student's research problem. He was interested in everything, and in one afternoon they might discuss quantum electrodynamics, cosmic rays, electron pair production and nuclear physics.[39] 

He worked closely with Nobel Prize-winning experimental physicist Ernest O. Lawrence and his cyclotron pioneers, helping them understand the data their machines were producing at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.[40] In 1936, Berkeley promoted him to full professor at a salary of $3,300 a year (equivalent to $64,000 in 2021). In return he was asked to curtail his teaching at Caltech, so a compromise was reached whereby Berkeley released him for six weeks each year, enough to teach one term at Caltech.[41] 

Scientific work 

Oppenheimer did important research in theoretical astronomy (especially as related to general relativity and nuclear theory), nuclear physics, spectroscopy, and quantum field theory, including its extension into quantum electrodynamics. The formal mathematics of relativistic quantum mechanics also attracted his attention, although he doubted its validity. His work predicted many later finds, which include the neutron, meson and neutron star.[42]

Initially, his major interest was the theory of the continuous spectrum and his first published paper, in 1926, concerned the quantum theory of molecular band spectra. He developed a method to carry out calculations of its transition probabilities. He calculated the photoelectric effect for hydrogen and X-rays, obtaining the absorption coefficient at the K-edge. His calculations accorded with observations of the X-ray absorption of the sun, but not helium. Years later it was realized that the sun was largely composed of hydrogen and that his calculations were indeed correct.[43][44] 

Oppenheimer also made important contributions to the theory of cosmic ray showers and started work that eventually led to descriptions of quantum tunneling. In 1931, he co-wrote a paper on the "Relativistic Theory of the Photoelectric Effect" with his student Harvey Hall,[45] in which, based on empirical evidence, he correctly disputed Dirac's assertion that two of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom have the same energy. Subsequently, one of his doctoral students, Willis Lamb, determined that this was a consequence of what became known as the Lamb shift, for which Lamb was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1955.[42]

With his first doctoral student, Melba Phillips, Oppenheimer worked on calculations of artificial radioactivity under bombardment by deuterons. When Ernest Lawrence and Edwin McMillan bombarded nuclei with deuterons they found the results agreed closely with the predictions of George Gamow, but when higher energies and heavier nuclei were involved, the results did not conform to the theory. In 1935, Oppenheimer and Phillips worked out a theory—now known as the Oppenheimer–Phillips process—to explain the results; this theory is still in use today.[46]

As early as 1930, Oppenheimer wrote a paper that essentially predicted the existence of the positron. This was after a paper by Paul Dirac proposed that electrons could have both a positive charge and negative energy. Dirac's paper introduced an equation, known as the Dirac equation, which unified quantum mechanics, special relativity and the then-new concept of electron spin, to explain the Zeeman effect.[47] Oppenheimer, drawing on the body of experimental evidence, rejected the idea that the predicted positively charged electrons were protons. He argued that they would have to have the same mass as an electron, whereas experiments showed that protons were much heavier than electrons. Two years later, Carl David Anderson discovered the positron, for which he received the 1936 Nobel Prize in Physics.[48]

In the late 1930s, Oppenheimer became interested in astrophysics, most likely through his friendship with Richard Tolman, resulting in a series of papers. In the first of these, a 1938 paper co-written with Robert Serber entitled "On the Stability of Stellar Neutron Cores",[49] Oppenheimer explored the properties of white dwarfs. This was followed by a paper co-written with one of his students, George Volkoff, "On Massive Neutron Cores",[50] in which they demonstrated that there was a limit, the so-called Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, to the mass of stars beyond which they would not remain stable as neutron stars and would undergo gravitational collapse. Finally, in 1939, Oppenheimer and another of his students, Hartland Snyder, produced a paper "On Continued Gravitational Contraction",[51] which predicted the existence of what are today known as black holes. After the Born–Oppenheimer approximation paper, these papers remain his most cited, and were key factors in the rejuvenation of astrophysical research in the United States in the 1950s, mainly by John A. Wheeler.[52]

Oppenheimer's papers were considered difficult to understand even by the standards of the abstract topics he was expert in. He was fond of using elegant, if extremely complex, mathematical techniques to demonstrate physical principles, though he was sometimes criticized for making mathematical mistakes, presumably out of haste. "His physics was good", said his student Snyder, "but his arithmetic awful".[42]

After World War II, Oppenheimer published only five scientific papers, one of which was in biophysics, and none after 1950. Murray Gell-Mann, a later Nobelist who, as a visiting scientist, worked with him at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1951, offered this opinion: 

He didn't have Sitzfleisch, 'sitting flesh,' when you sit on a chair. As far as I know, he never wrote a long paper or did a long calculation, anything of that kind. He didn't have patience for that; his own work consisted of little aperçus, but quite brilliant ones. But he inspired other people to do things, and his influence was fantastic.[53] 

Oppenheimer's diverse interests sometimes interrupted his focus on science. He liked things that were difficult, and since much of the scientific work appeared easy for him, he developed an interest in the mystical and the cryptic. In 1933, he learned Sanskrit and met the Indologist Arthur W. Ryder at Berkeley. He eventually read the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads in the original Sanskrit, and deeply pondered over them. He later cited the Gita as one of the books that most shaped his philosophy of life.[54][55]

His close confidant and colleague, Nobel Prize winner Isidor Rabi, later gave his own interpretation: 

Oppenheimer was overeducated in those fields, which lie outside the scientific tradition, such as his interest in religion, in the Hindu religion in particular, which resulted in a feeling of mystery of the universe that surrounded him like a fog. He saw physics clearly, looking toward what had already been done, but at the border he tended to feel there was much more of the mysterious and novel than there actually was ... [he turned] away from the hard, crude methods of theoretical physics into a mystical realm of broad intuition.[56] 

In spite of this, observers such as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez have suggested that if he had lived long enough to see his predictions substantiated by experiment, Oppenheimer might have won a Nobel Prize for his work on gravitational collapse, concerning neutron stars and black holes.[57][58] In retrospect, some physicists and historians consider this to be his most important contribution, though it was not taken up by other scientists in his own lifetime.[59] The physicist and historian Abraham Pais once asked Oppenheimer what he considered to be his most important scientific contributions; Oppenheimer cited his work on electrons and positrons, not his work on gravitational contraction.[60] Oppenheimer was nominated for the Nobel Prize for physics three times, in 1946, 1951 and 1967, but never won.[61][62] 

Los Alamos 

On October 9, 1941, two months before the United States entered World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved a crash program to develop an atomic bomb.[91] In May 1942, National Defense Research Committee Chairman James B. Conant, who had been one of Oppenheimer's lecturers at Harvard, invited Oppenheimer to take over work on fast neutron calculations, a task that Oppenheimer threw himself into with full vigor. He was given the title "Coordinator of Rapid Rupture", which specifically referred to the propagation of a fast neutron chain reaction in an atomic bomb. One of his first acts was to host a summer school for bomb theory at his building in Berkeley. The mix of European physicists and his own students—a group including Robert Serber, Emil Konopinski, Felix Bloch, Hans Bethe and Edward Teller—kept themselves busy by calculating what needed to be done, and in what order, to make the bomb.[92] 

In June 1942, the US Army established the Manhattan Project to handle its part in the atom bomb project and began the process of transferring responsibility from the Office of Scientific Research and Development to the military.[94] In September, Groves was appointed director of what became known as the Manhattan Project.[95] He selected Oppenheimer to head the project's secret weapons laboratory. This was a choice that surprised many because Oppenheimer had left-wing political views and no record as a leader of large projects. Groves was concerned by the fact that Oppenheimer did not have a Nobel Prize and might not have had the prestige to direct fellow scientists.[96] However, he was impressed by Oppenheimer's singular grasp of the practical aspects of designing and constructing an atomic bomb, and by the breadth of his knowledge. As a military engineer, Groves knew that this would be vital in an interdisciplinary project that would involve not just physics, but chemistry, metallurgy, ordnance and engineering. Groves also detected in Oppenheimer something that many others did not, an "overweening ambition" that Groves reckoned would supply the drive necessary to push the project to a successful conclusion. Isidor Rabi considered the appointment "a real stroke of genius on the part of General Groves, who was not generally considered to be a genius".[97]

Oppenheimer and Groves decided that for security and cohesion they needed a centralized, secret research laboratory in a remote location. Scouting for a site in late 1942, Oppenheimer was drawn to New Mexico, not far from his ranch. On November 16, 1942, Oppenheimer, Groves and others toured a prospective site. Oppenheimer feared that the high cliffs surrounding the site would make his people feel claustrophobic, while the engineers were concerned with the possibility of flooding. He then suggested and championed a site that he knew well: a flat mesa near Santa Fe, New Mexico, which was the site of a private boys' school called the Los Alamos Ranch School. The engineers were concerned about the poor access road and the water supply but otherwise felt that it was ideal.[98] The Los Alamos Laboratory was built on the site of the school, taking over some of its buildings, while many new buildings were erected in great haste. At the laboratory, Oppenheimer assembled a group of the top physicists of the time, which he referred to as the "luminaries".[99]

Los Alamos was initially supposed to be a military laboratory, and Oppenheimer and other researchers were to be commissioned into the Army. He went so far as to order himself a lieutenant colonel's uniform and take the Army physical test, which he failed. Army doctors considered him underweight at 128 pounds (58 kg), diagnosed his chronic cough as tuberculosis and were concerned about his chronic lumbosacral joint pain.[100] The plan to commission scientists fell through when Robert Bacher and Isidor Rabi balked at the idea. Conant, Groves, and Oppenheimer devised a compromise whereby the laboratory was operated by the University of California under contract to the War Department.[101] It soon turned out that Oppenheimer had hugely underestimated the magnitude of the project; Los Alamos grew from a few hundred people in 1943 to over 6,000 in 1945.[100]

Oppenheimer at first had difficulty with the organizational division of large groups, but rapidly learned the art of large-scale administration after he took up permanent residence on the mesa. He was noted for his mastery of all scientific aspects of the project and for his efforts to control the inevitable cultural conflicts between scientists and the military. He was an iconic figure to his fellow scientists, as much a symbol of what they were working toward as a scientific director. Victor Weisskopf put it thus: 

Oppenheimer directed these studies, theoretical and experimental, in the real sense of the words. Here his uncanny speed in grasping the main points of any subject was a decisive factor; he could acquaint himself with the essential details of every part of the work. He did not direct from the head office. He was intellectually and physically present at each decisive step. He was present in the laboratory or in the seminar rooms, when a new effect was measured, when a new idea was conceived. It was not that he contributed so many ideas or suggestions; he did so sometimes, but his main influence came from something else. It was his continuous and intense presence, which produced a sense of direct participation in all of us; it created that unique atmosphere of enthusiasm and challenge that pervaded the place throughout its time.[102] 

At this point in the war, there was considerable anxiety among the scientists that the Germans might be making faster progress on an atomic weapon than they were.[103][104] In a letter dated May 25, 1943, Oppenheimer responded to a proposal from Fermi to use radioactive materials to poison German food supplies. Oppenheimer asked Fermi whether he could produce enough strontium without letting too many in on the secret. Oppenheimer continued, "I think we should not attempt a plan unless we can poison food sufficient to kill a half a million men."[105] 

In 1943 development efforts were directed to a plutonium gun-type fission weapon called "Thin Man". Initial research on the properties of plutonium was done using cyclotron-generated plutonium-239, which was extremely pure but could only be created in tiny amounts. When Los Alamos received the first sample of plutonium from the X-10 Graphite Reactor in April 1944 a problem was discovered: reactor-bred plutonium had a higher concentration of plutonium-240, making it unsuitable for use in a gun-type weapon.[106] In July 1944, Oppenheimer abandoned the gun design in favor of an implosion-type weapon. Using chemical explosive lenses, a sub-critical sphere of fissile material could be squeezed into a smaller and denser form. The metal needed to travel only very short distances, so the critical mass would be assembled in much less time.[107] In August 1944 Oppenheimer implemented a sweeping reorganization of the Los Alamos laboratory to focus on implosion.[108] He concentrated the development efforts on the gun-type device, a simpler design that only had to work with uranium-235, in a single group, and this device became Little Boy in February 1945.[109] After a mammoth research effort, the more complex design of the implosion device, known as the "Christy gadget" after Robert Christy, another student of Oppenheimer's,[110] was finalized in a meeting in Oppenheimer's office on February 28, 1945.[111]

In May 1945 an Interim Committee was created to advise and report on wartime and postwar policies regarding the use of nuclear energy. The Interim Committee in turn established a scientific panel consisting of Arthur Compton, Fermi, Lawrence and Oppenheimer to advise it on scientific issues. In its presentation to the Interim Committee, the scientific panel offered its opinion not just on the likely physical effects of an atomic bomb, but on its likely military and political impact.[112] This included opinions on such sensitive issues as whether or not the Soviet Union should be advised of the weapon in advance of its use against Japan.[113] 

Trinity 

The joint work of the scientists at Los Alamos resulted in the world's first nuclear explosion, near Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945. Oppenheimer had given the site the codename "Trinity" in mid-1944 and said later that it was from one of John Donne's Holy Sonnets. According to the historian Gregg Herken, this naming could have been an allusion to Jean Tatlock, who had committed suicide a few months previously and had in the 1930s introduced Oppenheimer to Donne's work.[115]

Oppenheimer later recalled that, while witnessing the explosion, he thought of a verse from the Bhagavad Gita (XI,12): divi sūrya-sahasrasya bhaved yugapad utthitā yadi bhāḥ sadṛṥī sā syād bhāsas tasya mahātmanaḥ[116] 

If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one ...[5][117] 

Years later he would explain that another verse had also entered his head at that time: namely, the famous verse: "kālo'smi lokakṣayakṛtpravṛddho lokānsamāhartumiha pravṛttaḥ" (XI,32),[118] which he translated as "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."[note 2]

In 1965, when he was persuaded to quote again for a television broadcast, he said: 

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.[3] 

Among those present with Oppenheimer in the control bunker at the site were his brother Frank and Brigadier General Thomas Farrell. When Jeremy Bernstein asked Frank what Robert's first words after the test had been, the answer was "I guess it worked."[119] Farrell summarized Robert's reaction as follows: 

Dr. Oppenheimer, on whom had rested a very heavy burden, grew tenser as the last seconds ticked off. He scarcely breathed. He held on to a post to steady himself. For the last few seconds, he stared directly ahead and then when the announcer shouted "Now!" and there came this tremendous burst of light followed shortly thereafter by the deep growling roar of the explosion, his face relaxed into an expression of tremendous relief.[120] 

Physicist Isidor Rabi noticed Oppenheimer's disconcerting triumphalism: "I'll never forget his walk; I'll never forget the way he stepped out of the car ... his walk was like High Noon ... this kind of strut. He had done it."[121] At an assembly at Los Alamos on August 6 (the evening of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima), Oppenheimer took to the stage and clasped his hands together "like a prize-winning boxer" while the crowd cheered. He noted his regret the weapon had not been available in time to use against Nazi Germany.[122] However, he and many of the project staff were very upset about the bombing of Nagasaki, as they did not feel the second bomb was necessary from a military point of view.[123] He traveled to Washington on August 17 to hand-deliver a letter to Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson expressing his revulsion and his wish to see nuclear weapons banned.[124] In October 1945 Oppenheimer was granted an interview with President Harry S. Truman. The meeting, however, went badly, after Oppenheimer remarked he felt he had "blood on my hands". The remark infuriated Truman and put an end to the meeting. Truman later told his Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson "I don't want to see that son-of-a-bitch in this office ever again."[125]

For his services as director of Los Alamos, Oppenheimer was awarded the Medal for Merit from President Harry S. Truman in 1946.[126] 

Final years and death 

The frontiers of science are separated now by long years of study, by specialized vocabularies, arts, techniques, and knowledge from the common heritage even of a most civilized society; and anyone working at the frontier of such science is in that sense a very long way from home, a long way too from the practical arts that were its matrix and origin, as indeed they were of what we today call art.

Robert Oppenheimer, "Prospects in the Arts and Sciences" in Man's Right to Knowledge[220] 

Starting in 1954, Oppenheimer lived for several months of the year on the island of Saint John in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 1957, he purchased a 2-acre (0.81 ha) tract of land on Gibney Beach, where he built a spartan home on the beach.[221] He spent a considerable amount of time sailing with his daughter Toni and wife Kitty.[222]

Oppenheimer's first public appearance following the stripping of his security clearance was a lecture titled "Prospects in the Arts and Sciences" for the Columbia University Bicentennial radio show Man's Right to Knowledge, in which he outlined his philosophy and his thoughts on the role of science in the modern world.[223][224] He had been selected for the final episode of the lecture series two years prior to the security hearing, though the university remained adamant that he stay on even after the controversy.[225]

In February 1955, the president of the University of Washington, Henry Schmitz, abruptly cancelled an invitation to Oppenheimer to deliver a series of lectures there. Schmitz's decision caused an uproar among the students; 1,200 of them signed a petition protesting the decision, and Schmitz was burned in effigy. While they marched in protest, the state of Washington outlawed the Communist Party, and required all government employees to swear a loyalty oath. Edwin Albrecht Uehling, the chairman of the physics department and a colleague of Oppenheimer's from Berkeley, appealed to the university senate, and Schmitz's decision was overturned by a vote of 56-40. Oppenheimer stopped briefly in Seattle to change planes on a trip to Oregon, and was joined for coffee during his layover by several University of Washington faculty, but Oppenheimer never lectured there.[226][227] 

Oppenheimer was increasingly concerned about the potential danger that scientific inventions could pose to humanity. He joined with Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Joseph Rotblat and other eminent scientists and academics to establish what would eventually, in 1960, become the World Academy of Art and Science. Significantly, after his public humiliation, he did not sign the major open protests against nuclear weapons of the 1950s, including the Russell–Einstein Manifesto of 1955, nor, though invited, did he attend the first Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs in 1957.[228]

In his speeches and public writings, Oppenheimer continually stressed the difficulty of managing the power of knowledge in a world in which the freedom of science to exchange ideas was more and more hobbled by political concerns. Oppenheimer delivered the Reith Lectures on the BBC in 1953, which were subsequently published as Science and the Common Understanding.[229] In 1955 Oppenheimer published The Open Mind, a collection of eight lectures that he had given since 1946 on the subject of nuclear weapons and popular culture. Oppenheimer rejected the idea of nuclear gunboat diplomacy. "The purposes of this country in the field of foreign policy", he wrote, "cannot in any real or enduring way be achieved by coercion". In 1957 the philosophy and psychology departments at Harvard invited Oppenheimer to deliver the William James Lectures. An influential group of Harvard alumni led by Edwin Ginn that included Archibald Roosevelt protested against the decision.[230] Some 1,200 people packed into Sanders Theatre to hear Oppenheimer's six lectures, entitled "The Hope of Order".[228] Oppenheimer delivered the Whidden Lectures at McMaster University in 1962, and these were published in 1964 as The Flying Trapeze: Three Crises for Physicists.[231]Deprived of political power, Oppenheimer continued to lecture, write and work on physics. He toured Europe and Japan, giving talks about the history of science, the role of science in society, and the nature of the universe.[232] In September 1957, France made him an Officer of the Legion of Honor,[233] and on May 3, 1962, he was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society in Britain.[234][235] At the urging of many of Oppenheimer's political friends who had ascended to power, President John F. Kennedy awarded Oppenheimer the Enrico Fermi Award in 1963 as a gesture of political rehabilitation. Edward Teller, the winner of the previous year's award, had also recommended Oppenheimer receive it, in the hope that it would heal the rift between them.[236] A little over a week after Kennedy's assassination, his successor, President Lyndon Johnson, presented Oppenheimer with the award, "for contributions to theoretical physics as a teacher and originator of ideas, and for leadership of the Los Alamos Laboratory and the atomic energy program during critical years".[237] Oppenheimer told Johnson: "I think it is just possible, Mr. President, that it has taken some charity and some courage for you to make this award today."[238]

The rehabilitation implied by the award was partly symbolic, as Oppenheimer still lacked a security clearance and could have no effect on official policy, but the award came with a $50,000 tax-free stipend, and its award outraged many prominent Republicans in Congress. The late President Kennedy's widow Jacqueline, still living in the White House, made it a point to meet with Oppenheimer to tell him how much her husband had wanted him to have the medal.[239] While still a senator in 1959, Kennedy had been instrumental in voting to narrowly deny Oppenheimer's enemy Lewis Strauss a coveted government position as Secretary of Commerce, effectively ending Strauss's political career. This was partly due to lobbying by the scientific community on behalf of Oppenheimer.[240] 

Oppenheimer was a chain smoker who was diagnosed with throat cancer in late 1965. After inconclusive surgery, he underwent unsuccessful radiation treatment and chemotherapy late in 1966.[241] He fell into a coma on February 15, 1967, and died at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, on February 18, aged 62. A memorial service was held a week later at Alexander Hall on the campus of Princeton University. The service was attended by 600 of his scientific, political and military associates that included Bethe, Groves, Kennan, Lilienthal, Rabi, Smyth and Wigner. His brother Frank and the rest of his family were also there, as was the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the novelist John O'Hara, and George Balanchine, the director of the New York City Ballet. Bethe, Kennan and Smyth gave brief eulogies.[242] Oppenheimer's body was cremated and his ashes were placed into an urn. His wife Kitty took the ashes to St. John and dropped the urn into the sea, within sight of the beach house.[243]

In October 1972, Kitty died aged 62 from an intestinal infection that was complicated by a pulmonary embolism. Oppenheimer's ranch in New Mexico was then inherited by their son Peter, and the beach property was inherited by their daughter Katherine "Toni" Oppenheimer Silber. Toni was refused security clearance for her chosen vocation as a United Nations translator after the FBI brought up the old charges against her father. In January 1977 (three months after the end of her second marriage), she committed suicide aged 32; her ex-husband found her hanging from a beam in her family beach house.[244] She left the property to "the people of St. John for a public park and recreation area".[245] The original house was built too close to the coast and succumbed to a hurricane. Today the Virgin Islands Government maintains a Community Center in the area.[246]