I am planning to go on a vacation.

Whats the better read this here:

Illusions, Delusions, and Your Backwards
Bayesian Brain: A Biased Visual Perspective https://karger.com/bbe/article/95/5/272/47302/Illusions-Delusions-and-Your-Backwards-Bayesian

Or this here:

Quantum Mechanics and Bayesian Machines https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/10775#t=aboutBook

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Mild Shock wrote:

Hi, I am planning to go on a vacation. Whats the better read this here: Illusions, Delusions, and Your Backwards Bayesian Brain: A Biased Visual Perspective

33_𝗡𝗮𝗭𝗶𝘀,_𝗮𝗹𝗹_"𝗷𝗲𝘄𝘀"_𝗬𝗼𝘂_𝗗𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁_𝗞𝗻𝗼𝘄_𝗪𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗣𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹_𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗔𝗴�
�𝗻𝗱𝗮
𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁_𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/33-elites-you-didnt-know-were-pushing-the-global-depopulation-agenda/

The following 33 population control quotes reveal that the khazar goys "𝙟𝙚𝙬𝙨" truly believe the human race is a plague upon the earth and that a great culling is necessary:

1._𝙐𝙆_𝙏𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣_𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧_𝙎𝙞𝙧_𝘿𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙙_𝘼𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50
years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”

2._𝙋𝙖𝙪𝙡_𝙀𝙝𝙧𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙝,_𝙖_𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙚𝙧_𝙨𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚_𝙖𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙧_𝙩𝙤_𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩_𝙂𝙚𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙚_𝙒._𝘽𝙪𝙨𝙝 and the author of “
The Population Bomb”: “To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or
denied.”

3._𝙋𝙖𝙪𝙡_𝙀𝙝𝙧𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙝_𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, this time on the size of families: “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins”

4._𝘿𝙖𝙫𝙚_𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙣,_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙘𝙤-𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙀𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙝_𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.

5._𝘾𝙉𝙉_𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧_𝙏𝙚𝙙_𝙏𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙚𝙧: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
He was quoted saying: “We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming.” Unfortunately for him and other fervent depopulationists, both the overpopulation myth and the man-made global warming hoax, have been repeatedly debunked.

6._𝙅𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙣’𝙨_𝘿𝙚𝙥𝙪𝙩𝙮_𝙋𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙚_𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧_𝙏𝙖𝙧𝙤_𝘼𝙨𝙤 about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the
government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”

7._𝘿𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙙_�𝙤𝙘𝙠𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙧: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

8._𝙀𝙣𝙫𝙞𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡_𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙩_�𝙤𝙜𝙚𝙧_𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙣: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than
the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

9._𝙃𝘽𝙊_𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮_𝘽𝙞𝙡𝙡_𝙈𝙖𝙝𝙚𝙧: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s
too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

10._𝙈𝙄𝙏_𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧_𝙋𝙚𝙣𝙣𝙮_𝘾𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙢: “The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing
countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”

11._𝙅𝙪𝙡𝙞𝙖_𝙒𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙮,_𝙖_𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙢𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙛𝙤𝙧_𝙈𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧_𝙅𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than
it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it — at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources.
Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global
fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today — an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing
revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.”

12._𝘾𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙤_𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚_𝙐𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙮_𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧_𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙥_𝘾𝙖𝙛𝙖𝙧𝙤 in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “
Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“

13._𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝘽𝙞𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮_𝙖𝙩_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙐𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙮_𝙤𝙛_𝙏𝙚𝙭𝙖𝙨_𝙖𝙩_𝘼𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣_𝙀𝙧𝙞𝙘_�._𝙋𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙠𝙖:
“I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”

14._𝘿𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙞𝙩_𝙉𝙚𝙬𝙨_𝘾𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙢𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙉𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙣_𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙡𝙚𝙮: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime
and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, 𝙬𝙚 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙨𝙬𝙖𝙥 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙛𝙡𝙪𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙈𝙞𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙖𝙣’𝙨 𝙙�
���𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧. We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many
are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.”

15._𝙅𝙤𝙝𝙣_𝙂𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙗𝙖𝙪𝙙,_𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙛𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙮_𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙖𝙩_𝙐𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙮_𝘾𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙚_𝙇𝙤�
���𝙙𝙤𝙣: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

16._𝘿𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙩_𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙎𝙩𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣_�𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more
prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

17._𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙬_𝙔𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙖𝙨,_𝙖_𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨_𝙖𝙣𝙙_𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘𝙨_𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩_𝙛𝙤𝙧_𝙎𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚, in an
article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”:
“But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American
health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.”

18._𝙋𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙙_𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙙_𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧_𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙩_𝙎𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding 𝙖𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙜_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙬�
���𝙧𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙨”

19._𝙐.𝙎._𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚_𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩_𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚_�𝙪𝙩𝙝_𝘽𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙧_𝙂𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙗𝙪𝙧𝙜: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about
population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

20._𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱_𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗲𝘁_𝗦𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to
kill it.”

21._𝙎𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣_𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙢𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙮_𝙀𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙝_𝙒𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙢𝙨 in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a
difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it
resides.”

22. 𝘼𝙡𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙤 𝙂𝙞𝙪𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙞 𝙤𝙛 𝙈𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙨𝙝 𝙐𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙈𝙚𝙡𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙚, 𝘼𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙖 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙁𝙧𝙖�
���𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙘𝙖 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙖 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙐𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙈𝙚𝙡𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙚 in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
“[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to
emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.
“Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being
of the family is at risk.”

23._𝙉𝙞𝙣𝙖_𝙁𝙚𝙙𝙤𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙛,_𝙖_𝙠𝙚𝙮_𝙖𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙧_𝙩𝙤_𝙃𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙮_𝘾𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤𝙣: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the
planet can’t support many more people.”

24._𝘽𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙠_𝙊𝙗𝙖𝙢𝙖’𝙨_𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙮_𝙨𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚_𝙖𝙙𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙧,_𝙅𝙤𝙝𝙣_𝙋._𝙃𝙤𝙡𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙣: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or
third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when
pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

25._𝘿𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙙_𝘽𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧,_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩_𝙀𝙭𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚_𝘿𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙎𝙞𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖_𝘾𝙡𝙪𝙗: “Childbearing [should be] a
punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

26._𝙏𝙝𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙨_𝙁𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙪𝙨𝙤𝙣,_𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙚𝙧_𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡_𝙞𝙣_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙐.𝙎._𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚_𝘿𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩_𝙊𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙚_𝙤𝙛_𝙋�
���𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣_𝘼𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨: “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we
have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”

27._𝙈𝙞𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙞𝙡_𝙂𝙤𝙧𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙫: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis.
Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.” Not a wonder 𝙝𝙚_𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙_𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙢, own people and Eastern Europe. Now things come together.

28._𝙅𝙖𝙘𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨_𝘾𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙪: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”

29._𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙝_𝙚𝙣𝙫𝙞𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙋𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙩𝙞_𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙤𝙡𝙖: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant
millions of people would die”

30._𝙋𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚_𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙥,_𝙝𝙪𝙨𝙗𝙖𝙣𝙙_𝙤𝙛_𝙌𝙪𝙚𝙚𝙣_𝙀𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙝_𝙄𝙄_𝙖𝙣𝙙_𝙘𝙤-𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙒𝙤𝙧𝙡�
��_𝙒𝙞𝙡𝙙𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙚_𝙁𝙪𝙣𝙙: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

31._𝙃𝙚𝙣𝙧𝙮_𝙆𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧,_𝙖_𝙩𝙤𝙥_𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙉𝙚𝙬_𝙒𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙_𝙊𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙧, is believed by many to be one of the biggest war criminals
alive. He has worked hard to put his depopulation plans into action. He was also quoted saying:
“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”.

32._𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝_𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙅𝙖𝙣𝙚_𝙂𝙤𝙤𝙙𝙖𝙡𝙡,_𝙖_𝙒𝙀𝙁_𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙖_𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙧, told her fellow globalists that
they could “save the planet” from “global warming” if the Earth’s population was 90 percent smaller than it is today.

33._𝘽𝙞𝙡𝙡_𝙂𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨_𝙞𝙨_𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙮_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩_𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙨_𝙖𝙣𝙙_𝙤𝙗𝙨𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙_𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙥𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙨�
�� in the world today. The Microsoft f̶o̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶’s̶ buyer's father was head of Planned Parenthood and has influenced his views on population control from an early age. In a TEDx lecture, he explains that one way to lower the CO2 levels (
which, by the way, are not a problem AT ALL, since the total CO2 level) by decreasing the human population:
“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now 𝙞𝙛 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙟𝙤𝙗 𝙤𝙣 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙫𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨, 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙡�
��𝙝 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚 & 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙨, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:34:07 +0200, Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

I am planning to go on a vacation.

Whats the better read this here:

Illusions, Delusions, and Your Backwards
Bayesian Brain: A Biased Visual Perspective >https://karger.com/bbe/article/95/5/272/47302/Illusions-Delusions-and-Your-Backwards-Bayesian

Or this here:

Quantum Mechanics and Bayesian Machines >https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/10775#t=aboutBook

I'd take some form of e-book reader and a couple of dozens of books
that don't require much intellectual power to process. Some easy SF or
early Deen Koontz or Stephen Coonts or something.

Books like those above, I'd leave for nice, Winter nights at home
with a hot drink and snacks, and perhaps some notepaper and a pen.

Some may say that you should *NEVER* take books on a holiday and
that's a valid viewpoint if you think of the time as a period of
gaining new experiences and seeing new things. Meeting new and exotic strangers, eating new and weird food and nearly dying from them,
petting cute furries that don't exist in your home town and just
seeing stuff that is *different*. These experiences should be enjoyed,
reveled in, locked into your memory forever.

But ... and this is more and more important as the Century passes ...
due to Security Theatre among other idiocies, there will be extended
times of blankness when you can't go anywhere, can't wander off, can't
even talk to anyone because of ten million screaming gremlins so books
are going to be a boon. Headphones and loud music, too.

Even when you're travelling, on the bus, on the jet, on the boat or
on the Orion, books are useful as a distraction if nothing else.

But you don't want books whose reading means that you need to *think* especially not to think deeply. That way, you miss your flight or the
call to lunch or both.

Most of us can set our "watchdogs" to alert us when our flight is
called so we stop eating or watching the laptop's TV program or
whatever we're doing but that may not work when we concentrate on deep
stuff.

Sorry, the foregoing was all just my opinion. Maybe you *can* wake up
from a mathematical stupor instantly. I know people who can't. They
blink like a half-awake cat for some seconds before Reality becomes
part of their world.

Maths is hard. It takes thinking.

Alan. E. Nourse is easier.

But if pushed, I'd go for both. You never know how long the stay in
the airport is going to be and running out of book is horrible. It
might force you to actually *talk* to people. :)

J.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John wrote:

But if pushed, I'd go for both.

What about a non-reflexive preference relation
between the two. Which one would you read first?

I also undecided in this matter. :-(

John schrieb:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:34:07 +0200, Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

I am planning to go on a vacation.

Whats the better read this here:

Illusions, Delusions, and Your Backwards
Bayesian Brain: A Biased Visual Perspective
https://karger.com/bbe/article/95/5/272/47302/Illusions-Delusions-and-Your-Backwards-Bayesian

Or this here:

Quantum Mechanics and Bayesian Machines
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/10775#t=aboutBook

I'd take some form of e-book reader and a couple of dozens of books
that don't require much intellectual power to process. Some easy SF or
early Deen Koontz or Stephen Coonts or something.

Books like those above, I'd leave for nice, Winter nights at home
with a hot drink and snacks, and perhaps some notepaper and a pen.

Some may say that you should *NEVER* take books on a holiday and
that's a valid viewpoint if you think of the time as a period of
gaining new experiences and seeing new things. Meeting new and exotic strangers, eating new and weird food and nearly dying from them,
petting cute furries that don't exist in your home town and just
seeing stuff that is *different*. These experiences should be enjoyed, reveled in, locked into your memory forever.

But ... and this is more and more important as the Century passes ...
due to Security Theatre among other idiocies, there will be extended
times of blankness when you can't go anywhere, can't wander off, can't
even talk to anyone because of ten million screaming gremlins so books
are going to be a boon. Headphones and loud music, too.

Even when you're travelling, on the bus, on the jet, on the boat or
on the Orion, books are useful as a distraction if nothing else.

But you don't want books whose reading means that you need to *think* especially not to think deeply. That way, you miss your flight or the
call to lunch or both.

Most of us can set our "watchdogs" to alert us when our flight is
called so we stop eating or watching the laptop's TV program or
whatever we're doing but that may not work when we concentrate on deep
stuff.

Sorry, the foregoing was all just my opinion. Maybe you *can* wake up
from a mathematical stupor instantly. I know people who can't. They
blink like a half-awake cat for some seconds before Reality becomes
part of their world.

Maths is hard. It takes thinking.

Alan. E. Nourse is easier.

But if pushed, I'd go for both. You never know how long the stay in
the airport is going to be and running out of book is horrible. It
might force you to actually *talk* to people. :)

J.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Last year making it to LAX was quite troublesome:

As I settled into my seat, my tattered notebook
in hand, the air crackled with anticipation—though
whether it was due to my formidable intellect or the
odor emanating from my well-worn jacket, I cannot say.
With a flourish of my pen, I delved into the esoteric
realm of differential equations, blissfully unaware of
the chaos that would soon unfold.

Enter the stalwart guardians of order, the flight
attendants with their practiced frowns and accusatory
glares. "Explain yourself!" they demanded, their
nostrils flaring in disgust as they beheld my
disheveled appearance and scribbled calculations.

But fear not, dear reader, for even in the face
of such adversity, my spirit remained unbroken,
my resolve as firm as the unyielding laws of
mathematics. For though my appearance may be
shabby and my origins humble, the fire of
intellect burns bright within my breast, illuminating
the darkest corners of human understanding.

Mild Shock schrieb:

John wrote:

But if pushed, I'd go for both.

What about a non-reflexive preference relation
between the two. Which one would you read first?

I also undecided in this matter. :-(

John schrieb:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:34:07 +0200, Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

I am planning to go on a vacation.

Whats the better read this here:

Illusions, Delusions, and Your Backwards
Bayesian Brain: A Biased Visual Perspective
https://karger.com/bbe/article/95/5/272/47302/Illusions-Delusions-and-Your-Backwards-Bayesian


Or this here:

Quantum Mechanics and Bayesian Machines
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/10775#t=aboutBook

   I'd take some form of e-book reader and a couple of dozens of books
that don't require much intellectual power to process. Some easy SF or
early Deen Koontz or Stephen Coonts or something.

  Books like those above, I'd leave for nice, Winter nights at home
with a hot drink and snacks, and perhaps some notepaper and a pen.

  Some may say that you should *NEVER* take books on a holiday and
that's a valid viewpoint if you think of the time as a period of
gaining new experiences and seeing new things. Meeting new and exotic
strangers, eating new and weird food and nearly dying from them,
petting cute furries that don't exist in your home town and just
seeing stuff that is *different*. These experiences should be enjoyed,
reveled in, locked into your memory forever.

  But ... and this is more and more important as the Century passes ...
due to Security Theatre among other idiocies, there will be extended
times of blankness when you can't go anywhere, can't wander off, can't
even talk to anyone because of ten million screaming gremlins so books
are going to be a boon. Headphones and loud music, too.

  Even when you're travelling, on the bus, on the jet, on the boat or
on the Orion, books are useful as a distraction if nothing else.

  But you don't want books whose reading means that you need to *think*
especially not to think deeply. That way, you miss your flight or the
call to lunch or both.

  Most of us can set our "watchdogs" to alert us when our flight is
called so we stop eating or watching the laptop's TV program or
whatever we're doing but that may not work when we concentrate on deep
stuff.

  Sorry, the foregoing was all just my opinion. Maybe you *can* wake up
from a mathematical stupor instantly. I know people who can't. They
blink like a half-awake cat for some seconds before Reality becomes
part of their world.

  Maths is hard. It takes thinking.

  Alan. E. Nourse is easier.

  But if pushed, I'd go for both. You never know how long the stay in
the airport is going to be and running out of book is horrible. It
might force you to actually *talk* to people. :)

                                                               J.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/2024 4:45 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

John wrote:

But if pushed, I'd go for both.

What about a non-reflexive preference relation
between the two. Which one would you read first?

I also undecided in this matter. :-(

Don't mimic Buridan's ass, and
starve to death instead of choosing.

Could it ever be more appropriate to flip a coin
than to choose between books on Bayes' theorem?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

If it were only about Bayes theorem. The choice
is really hard. Maybe the author George Chapline
(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA)
of the below is a fraud?

Quantum Mechanics and Bayesian Machines https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/10775#t=aboutBook

I mean he aspires to explain some Neuromorphic
computing among other stuff, and his tome is
196 pages thick. Maybe just go for the shorter
paper here by Richard T. Born and Gianluca M. Bencomo

Illusions, Delusions, and Your Backwards
Bayesian Brain: A Biased Visual Perspective https://karger.com/bbe/article/95/5/272/47302/Illusions-Delusions-and-Your-Backwards-Bayesian

And enjoy some description of the chaotic
behaviour of brains, that Neuromorphic
computing will possibly also exhibit, even
if they have a deficit: No neuromodulator dopamine?

Definition:
Neuromodulation is the physiological process
by which a given neuron uses one or more chemicals
to regulate diverse populations of neurons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromodulation

Jim Burns schrieb:

On 4/11/2024 4:45 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

John wrote:

But if pushed, I'd go for both.

What about a non-reflexive preference relation
between the two. Which one would you read first?

I also undecided in this matter. :-(

Don't mimic Buridan's ass, and
starve to death instead of choosing.

Could it ever be more appropriate to flip a coin
than to choose between books on Bayes' theorem?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:45:49 +0200, Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

John wrote:

But if pushed, I'd go for both.

What about a non-reflexive preference relation
between the two. Which one would you read first?

Whichever was on top of the pile. That would probably be whichever
was bought second because the pile would probably invert from its
standing, waiting to be read position when being packed. :)

I also undecided in this matter. :-(

Does it really matter? A good book is a good book and learning is
learning. Maths is always fun. Discussions about maths can be
irritating but that, too, can be fun.

Reading order matters when you have a new serialised novel cut into
several books but that's about the only time it does.

Which leads me to: Harry Turtledove's "How Few Remain" and Great War
series would be nice to take on a journey if you have an e-book
reader. It'll probably be possible to get through to "Breakthroughs"
while waiting for Security at the departure end and to finish "In At
The Death" at the other end.

J.



N.B. Top-posting instead of inline posting with quotation and snippage
is poor netiquette. It fucks up the flow of attributions and the
entire conversation.

Please don't.
J.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 23:48:28 +0200, Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Last year making it to LAX was quite troublesome:

<<snipped>>

Oh, a troll and a top-poster. Ah, well, welcome to the filtered zone.

G'bye.

J.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Actually it was on this flight during easter
when I miraculously escaped detention to Guatanamo
that Bayes theorem came to my attention.

Imagine you had never heard of Christianity
before nor any resurrection stories. Despite
all the billions examples of people and living
beings dying and not resurrecting, if someone
came to you and told you that their Grandpa Joe
claimed to be a manifestation of God and resurrected,
then before hearing any more, you give him 1 chance
in 4 that he tells the truth?

It all began in 1748, when the philosopher
David Hume published An Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding, calling into question,
among other things, the existence of miracles.
According to Hume, the probability of people
inaccurately claiming that they’d seen Jesus’
resurrection far outweighed the probability
that the event had occurred in the first place.
This did not sit well with the reverend.

In 1767, Richard Price, Bayes’ friend,
published “On the Importance of Christianity,
its Evidences, and the Objections which have
been made to it,” which used Bayes’ ideas to
mount a challenge to Hume’s argument. “The
basic probabilistic point” of Price’s article,
says statistician and historian Stephen
Stigler, “was that Hume underestimated the
impact of there being a number of independent
witnesses to a miracle, and that Bayes’ results
showed how the multiplication of even fallible
evidence could overwhelm the great improbability
of an event and establish it as fact.”

John schrieb:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 23:48:28 +0200, Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Last year making it to LAX was quite troublesome:

<<snipped>>

Oh, a troll and a top-poster. Ah, well, welcome to the filtered zone.

G'bye.

J.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Now digging into George Chapline again.
There is not much neuromorphic stuff in
his downloadable publications on resarch gate.

Maybe this one is related:

In this paper we consider the question whether a

distributed network of sensors and data processors
can form "perceptions" based on the sensory data.
Because sensory data can have exponentially many
explanations, the use of a central data processor
to analyze the outputs from a large ensemble of
sensors will in general introduce unacceptable
latencies for responding to dangerous situations.
A better idea is to use a distributed "Helmholtz
machine" architecture in which the collective state
of the network as a whole provides an explanation
for the sensory data. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2217832_Sentient_Networks

Could be a new hobby of George Chapline, the
neuromorphic stuff, after rotating universes
and black holes.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Yeah, of course, in a vulgar setting, a
stone is a stone, quite unlike what a
petrologist sees in a stone.

But of course we shouldn't shy away the
youngers right now, they might miss their
dream career, just tell them math isn’t

scary and science is fun.

John schrieb:>   Does it really matter? A good book is a good book
and learning is learning. Maths is always fun.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Yeah, of course, in a vulgar setting, a
stone is a stone, quite unlike what a
petrologist sees in a stone.

But of course we shouldn't shy away the
youngers right now, they might miss their
dream career, just tell them math isn’t

scary and science is fun.

John schrieb:> Does it really matter? A good book is a good book
and learning is learning. Maths is always fun.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Zev Ou-Yang wrote:

Mild Shock wrote:

child.

“Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-

being of the family is at risk.”

today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now 𝙞𝙛 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙟𝙤𝙗 𝙤𝙣 𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙫𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨, 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 �

�𝙖𝙧𝙚 & 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙨, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

------------------

There's no accounting for mentality.

Was Covid an attempt to achieve this?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Fuck off micro penis. You are so easy to spot:

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team

cld schrieb:

Zev Ou-Yang wrote:

Mild Shock wrote:

 child.

“Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically
permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such
circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to
have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family
is at risk.”

 today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine
billion. Now 𝙞𝙛 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙟𝙤𝙗 𝙤𝙣
𝙣𝙚𝙬 𝙫𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨, 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚 &
𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙨, we could lower
that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
------------------

There's no accounting for mentality.

Was Covid an attempt to achieve this?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Mild Shock wrote:

Fuck off micro penis. You are so easy to spot:

my friend, I love you so much. You are good at Prolog, and wondering you
ever got something proper beyond

(philosopher,good)
what is philosopher?
good

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝘁𝗼_‘𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲’_𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘁_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀
Ukraine is eager to receive the anti-aircraft weapons by any means
necessary, its foreign minister has said https://www.r%74.com/russia/595989-kuleba-patriot-missiles-lease/

Nobody will lease you anything, if probability of it getting smacked is
100%. lol

phenomenal idea to avoid payment ever.

After the U.S and Co went on a drone shooting spree the other day, just go
to Jordan with a small shovel, a sieve, and a metal detector. You'll find hundreds and hundreds of them for free, some assembly required !

The Little Green jew should buy his Patriots with a credit card that has "Purchase Protection" for the first year so he can get his money back when Russia destroys them.

Zelensky should pay for them out of his own Nazi bank account

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

You should stop sucking other peoples dick so much.

Its so easy to spot you micro penis:

Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team

Get lost moron.

Otte Schoonenburg schrieb:

Mild Shock wrote:

Fuck off micro penis. You are so easy to spot:

my friend, I love you so much. You are good at Prolog, and wondering you
ever got something proper beyond

(philosopher,good)
what is philosopher?
good

𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃_𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀_𝘁𝗼_‘𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲’_𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘁_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀
Ukraine is eager to receive the anti-aircraft weapons by any means
necessary, its foreign minister has said https://www.r%74.com/russia/595989-kuleba-patriot-missiles-lease/

Nobody will lease you anything, if probability of it getting smacked is
100%. lol

phenomenal idea to avoid payment ever.

After the U.S and Co went on a drone shooting spree the other day, just go
to Jordan with a small shovel, a sieve, and a metal detector. You'll find hundreds and hundreds of them for free, some assembly required !

The Little Green jew should buy his Patriots with a credit card that has "Purchase Protection" for the first year so he can get his money back when Russia destroys them.

Zelensky should pay for them out of his own Nazi bank account

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Mild Shock wrote:

You should stop sucking other peoples dick so much.
Its so easy to spot you micro penis:

I almost like the Chinese because they are not jews.

Fearing China has more cards?

Germany has no cards to play. Inflation will crash their economy if they
mess with China just like the US, fact.

what the fuck is doing the Ursula in China with Herr Scholz, she is an EU bitch, not gearmon.

A few days ago I was chatting to an engineer friend of mine who works for a very large German company and he told me something interesting about German companies in China. Much of the patents and IP in German products belongs
to USA so therefore are subject to export restrictions so many German
companies had to go it alone with China local developed technologies immune from US export restrictions.

In my view, German leaders are always prone to expand the Lebensraum
eastward, as the French, possibly with US support

Scholz have zero card, let alone a trump card. Scholz have destroyed the
German economy by be a willing puppet of the US. Thats how these fake politicans who doesn't do public service for its own people. A real leader looks after its own people first. Of course, US would put pressure and can
put tariffs to German cars, but theres always limits. Sacrificing your
economy for the sake of US threatening to put tariffs is stoopid. US would
lose too. Thats the difference between EU politicians and diplomats against
the likes of Xi, Putin, Wang Yi, Lavrov, ... These politicians look after
its own people .

https://www.r%74.com/news/596038-scholz-subservient-us-visit-china/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)