Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

🚨 SCIENTISTS CREATED THE WORLD'S FIRST SELF REPLICATING SYNTHETIC LIFE FORM — AND PEOPLE ARE FREAKING OUT This sounds like the plot of a science fiction movie. It isn't. A team of scientists spent roughly 15 years and $40 million creating what they described as the world's first self...

HustleBitch_'s profile picture

HustleBitch

334,041 subscribers

16,030 просмотров • 19 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Scientists have created “the first synthetic species” after 15 years of research costing $40 million dollars It’s a bacteria designed on a computer that “gets its genetic instructions from a synthetic chromosome made by man, not nature, and it's alive. It's alive and self-replicating. It means it can indefinitely grow and make copies of itself.” “Venter believes this is the first baby step in a biological revolution, one in which it will be possible to custom design and reprogram bacteria — DNA is the software of life” This work is considered a foundational milestone in synthetic biology, allegedly proving life could be engineered from scratch
2:01

Scientists have created “the first synthetic species” after 15 years of research costing $40 million dollars It’s a bacteria designed on a computer that “gets its genetic instructions from a synthetic chromosome made by man, not nature, and it's alive. It's alive and self-replicating. It means it can indefinitely grow and make copies of itself.” “Venter believes this is the first baby step in a biological revolution, one in which it will be possible to custom design and reprogram bacteria — DNA is the software of life” This work is considered a foundational milestone in synthetic biology, allegedly proving life could be engineered from scratch

Wall Street Apes

205,894 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"This is the first synthetic species,” microbiologist J. Craig Venter told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in 2010. His team of scientists created a synthetic bacteria designed on a computer, with man-made DNA. Venter says that from concept to completion, it took 15 years and $40 million to make. Venter, who died this week at 79, was one of the most famous scientists in the world, known for his pioneering work in deciphering the human genetic code.
2:00

"This is the first synthetic species,” microbiologist J. Craig Venter told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in 2010. His team of scientists created a synthetic bacteria designed on a computer, with man-made DNA. Venter says that from concept to completion, it took 15 years and $40 million to make. Venter, who died this week at 79, was one of the most famous scientists in the world, known for his pioneering work in deciphering the human genetic code.

60 Minutes

92,152 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨‼️ BILL GATES FUNDS FIRST MAN MADE SYNTHETIC BACTERIA THAT CAN DESTROY MANKIND After 15 years and 40 million dollars from Bill Gates, scientists have crossed the ultimate line. They created the FIRST SYNTHETIC SPECIES. A bacteria designed entirely on a computer with a synthetic chromosome built by humans, not nature. It is alive. It is self replicating. It grows and makes copies of itself indefinitely. Venter called it the first baby step in a biological revolution where we can custom design and reprogram bacteria. DNA is the software of life, he said. This is allegedly a foundational milestone proving life can be engineered from scratch. While everyone was distracted by vaccines and climate scares, Gates poured millions into rewriting the code of existence itself. Why does the man obsessed with depopulation now get to play God and create new organisms? Synthetic bacteria that can be programmed for anything. Fuels? Sure. But what else can these man made microbes be instructed to do once released? This is not progress. This is the elite seizing control of biology itself. Patented life. Designer microbes. The end of natural creation. The resistance must go ON CHAIN. Follow and support DNA Protocol fighting this madness with decentralized, transparent DNA technology before they patent and control all life. WAKE UP.
2:01

🚨‼️ BILL GATES FUNDS FIRST MAN MADE SYNTHETIC BACTERIA THAT CAN DESTROY MANKIND After 15 years and 40 million dollars from Bill Gates, scientists have crossed the ultimate line. They created the FIRST SYNTHETIC SPECIES. A bacteria designed entirely on a computer with a synthetic chromosome built by humans, not nature. It is alive. It is self replicating. It grows and makes copies of itself indefinitely. Venter called it the first baby step in a biological revolution where we can custom design and reprogram bacteria. DNA is the software of life, he said. This is allegedly a foundational milestone proving life can be engineered from scratch. While everyone was distracted by vaccines and climate scares, Gates poured millions into rewriting the code of existence itself. Why does the man obsessed with depopulation now get to play God and create new organisms? Synthetic bacteria that can be programmed for anything. Fuels? Sure. But what else can these man made microbes be instructed to do once released? This is not progress. This is the elite seizing control of biology itself. Patented life. Designer microbes. The end of natural creation. The resistance must go ON CHAIN. Follow and support DNA Protocol fighting this madness with decentralized, transparent DNA technology before they patent and control all life. WAKE UP.

Stern Drew

319,576 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Your DNA is like a computer program according to Blaise Agüera (@blaiseaguera.bsky.social). Von Neumann figured this out before scientists even discovered how DNA works -- that for anything to make a copy of itself, it needs: * Instructions (the code/DNA) * A machine to read those instructions (ribosomes) * A "photocopier" for the instructions (DNA polymerase) Blaise reckons that your cells are running actual computations to build proteins and replicate i.e. life is "software" running on hardware.
6:45

Your DNA is like a computer program according to Blaise Agüera (@blaiseaguera.bsky.social). Von Neumann figured this out before scientists even discovered how DNA works -- that for anything to make a copy of itself, it needs: * Instructions (the code/DNA) * A machine to read those instructions (ribosomes) * A "photocopier" for the instructions (DNA polymerase) Blaise reckons that your cells are running actual computations to build proteins and replicate i.e. life is "software" running on hardware.

Machine Learning Street Talk

15,794 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Stephen Meyer explaining why the discovery of the structure of DNA presented an unexpected challenge to the atheistic worldview: "What's really fun is that Francis Crick was a codebreaker in World War II and he ended up breaking the ultimate code. The irony is that Crick and Watson were also strict scientific materialists. They were atheists and they were looking for the material basis for life, and they thought they found it in 1953 until Crick realized it's not just a molecule. It's a molecule that contains code. And that discovery ends up being foundational. It provides evidence of what we're going to call Intelligent Design. And it has created a complete impass in evolutionary theory. People cannot account for the origin of the information needed to build the first life or subsequent forms of life... Even though Watson and Crick were looking for the material foundation for life, what they actually found was something more like software. And Bill Gates has said that DNA is like a computer program but far more advanced than ever any we've ever created."
3:05

Stephen Meyer explaining why the discovery of the structure of DNA presented an unexpected challenge to the atheistic worldview: "What's really fun is that Francis Crick was a codebreaker in World War II and he ended up breaking the ultimate code. The irony is that Crick and Watson were also strict scientific materialists. They were atheists and they were looking for the material basis for life, and they thought they found it in 1953 until Crick realized it's not just a molecule. It's a molecule that contains code. And that discovery ends up being foundational. It provides evidence of what we're going to call Intelligent Design. And it has created a complete impass in evolutionary theory. People cannot account for the origin of the information needed to build the first life or subsequent forms of life... Even though Watson and Crick were looking for the material foundation for life, what they actually found was something more like software. And Bill Gates has said that DNA is like a computer program but far more advanced than ever any we've ever created."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

14,033 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🚨 Jensen Huang says everyone panicked about the AI data when MOST training data was never REAL to begin with. Ilya Sutskever told the industry pre-training was over. "Ilya said, 'We're out of data,' or something like that. 'Pre-training is over,' or something like that," Huang says. "The industry panicked, you know, that this is the end of AI." "And of course, of course that's obviously not true. We're gonna keep on scaling the amount of data that we have to train with." "A lot of that data is probably gonna be synthetic." That's where the panic came from — synthetic data sounds like cheating. "Most of the data that we are training, that we teach each other with, inform each other with, is synthetic." "It's synthetic because it didn't come out of nature." "You created it. I'm consuming it. I modify it, augment it, I regenerate it, somebody else consumes it." The textbook in your hand is synthetic. The post you're reading is synthetic. The lecture you took is synthetic. Nature didn't make any of it. Humans did. AI just learned to do the same thing — faster. "Training is now limited by compute," Huang says. "Data is now limited by compute." The data wall wasn't a wall. It was a mirror. If you're new here, follow @AiEvolutio for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Jensen Huang ( NVIDIA ), NVIDIA CEO, on Lex Fridman's ( Lex Fridman ) podcast
1:29

🚨 Jensen Huang says everyone panicked about the AI data when MOST training data was never REAL to begin with. Ilya Sutskever told the industry pre-training was over. "Ilya said, 'We're out of data,' or something like that. 'Pre-training is over,' or something like that," Huang says. "The industry panicked, you know, that this is the end of AI." "And of course, of course that's obviously not true. We're gonna keep on scaling the amount of data that we have to train with." "A lot of that data is probably gonna be synthetic." That's where the panic came from — synthetic data sounds like cheating. "Most of the data that we are training, that we teach each other with, inform each other with, is synthetic." "It's synthetic because it didn't come out of nature." "You created it. I'm consuming it. I modify it, augment it, I regenerate it, somebody else consumes it." The textbook in your hand is synthetic. The post you're reading is synthetic. The lecture you took is synthetic. Nature didn't make any of it. Humans did. AI just learned to do the same thing — faster. "Training is now limited by compute," Huang says. "Data is now limited by compute." The data wall wasn't a wall. It was a mirror. If you're new here, follow @AiEvolutio for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Jensen Huang ( NVIDIA ), NVIDIA CEO, on Lex Fridman's ( Lex Fridman ) podcast

AI Evolution

15,565 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

How Can Scientists Best Become Founders? david friedberg answers a fan question from James Sinka - Boston & SF: "I think the biggest challenge that scientists face when trying to build businesses is shifting from a research and discovery mindset to a product and customer mindset." this can be really hard for scientists, because absolute truth doesn't rule the day in startups like it does in science example: "You have to listen to customers who sometimes might not want the most rational or the most obvious thing." "Iterating your business to find product-market fit is the necessary role of a founder. But it's often different than the scientific process of discovering absolute truth." so, how can scientists overcome this hurdle to become great founders? change their framing, and use the scientific method as a strength: "One way scientists can be successful is to think about product-market fit as a discovery process, and using the iterative and scientific method to try and get to that." "I have seen scientists shift to (an) engineering mindset, using the scientific method to try and find product-market fit."
0:54

How Can Scientists Best Become Founders? david friedberg answers a fan question from James Sinka - Boston & SF: "I think the biggest challenge that scientists face when trying to build businesses is shifting from a research and discovery mindset to a product and customer mindset." this can be really hard for scientists, because absolute truth doesn't rule the day in startups like it does in science example: "You have to listen to customers who sometimes might not want the most rational or the most obvious thing." "Iterating your business to find product-market fit is the necessary role of a founder. But it's often different than the scientific process of discovering absolute truth." so, how can scientists overcome this hurdle to become great founders? change their framing, and use the scientific method as a strength: "One way scientists can be successful is to think about product-market fit as a discovery process, and using the iterative and scientific method to try and get to that." "I have seen scientists shift to (an) engineering mindset, using the scientific method to try and find product-market fit."

The All-In Podcast

65,259 просмотров • 2 лет назад

This is the Existence Grid. It was inspired by the idea of seeing your entire life laid out in weeks. How much you have created and how much you still have to create. The grid is designed to show your life in years, months, weeks, and days. Not just as time passing, but as time created. For me, that is 51 years, 618 months, 2,686 weeks, and 18,802 days. It all began with one time block. June 28th, 1974 at 6:50am. The first block of my existence. This grid becomes the record of what you have created. The true story of you. Learn more about Existence here:
1:53

This is the Existence Grid. It was inspired by the idea of seeing your entire life laid out in weeks. How much you have created and how much you still have to create. The grid is designed to show your life in years, months, weeks, and days. Not just as time passing, but as time created. For me, that is 51 years, 618 months, 2,686 weeks, and 18,802 days. It all began with one time block. June 28th, 1974 at 6:50am. The first block of my existence. This grid becomes the record of what you have created. The true story of you. Learn more about Existence here:

Rob Dyrdek

99,501 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

🚨EPSTEIN FILES STATE THE CREATED NEANDERTHALS CLONES Clones of Neanderthals were created in underground tunnels as stated in the Epstein files released by the DOJ government in 2026. It is impossible to ignore the truth at this point. The truth is stranger than fiction and we have not heard anything stranger than this happening in real life. Per Charlie T Griffen The first studies of Neanderthal DNA focused on the genetic sequences of mitochondria, the microscopic organelles that convert food to energy within cells. In 2005, however, 454 began a collaborative project with the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, to sequence the full genetic code of a Neanderthal woman who died in Croatia's Vindija cave 30,000 years ago. As the Neanderthal genome is painstakingly sequenced, the archaeologists and biologists who study it will be faced with an opportunity that seemed like science fiction just 10 years ago. They will be able to look at the genetic blueprint of humankind's nearest relative and understand its biology as intimately as our own. In addition to giving scientists the ability to answer questions about Neanderthals' relationship to our own species--did we interbreed, are we separate species, who was smarter--the Neanderthal genome may be useful in researching medical treatments. Newly developed techniques could make cloning Neanderthal cells or body parts a reality within a few years. The ability to use the genes of extinct hominins is going to force the field of paleoanthropology into some unfamiliar ethical territory. There are still technical obstacles, but soon it could be possible to use that long-extinct genome to safely create a healthy, living Neanderthal clone. Should it be done? At the 454 Life Sciences offices, Gerald Irzyk, Jason Affourtit, and Thomas Jarvie explain the process they use to read the chemicals that made up Neanderthal DNA and the genes that determined a large part of their biology. DNA has a shape, called a double helix, that makes it look like a twisted ladder. Each rung on the ladder is called a base-pair. The rungs are made up of a pair of chemicals called nucleotides--adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, which are usually referred to by their first initials. The sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA determines what genes an organism has and how they function. Max Planck Institute initially chose 454 because it had come up with a way to read hundreds of thousands of DNA sequences at a time. Genome-sequencing technology is advancing at a rate comparable to computer processing power. Putting the fragments themselves in order can be a little tricky. "At first glance, it's just this completely random assemblage of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs," says Irzyk. "But it turns out there are patterns and motifs, and sometimes these are very specific to a group of organisms." For the Neanderthal sample, the human and chimpanzee genomes were used as references for checking the sequence. Working with ancient DNA can be much more problematic than sequencing genetic material from living species. Within hours of death, cells begin to break down in a process called apoptosis. The dying cells release enzymes that chop up DNA into tiny pieces. In a human cell, this means that the entire three-billion-base-pair genome is reduced to fragments a few hundred base-pairs long or shorter. The DNA also goes through chemical changes that alter the nucleotides as it ages--C changes into T, and G turns into A--which can cause the gene sequence to be interpreted incorrectly. In the case of the Neanderthal sample, somewhere between 90 and 99 percent of the DNA came from bacteria and other contaminants that had found their way into the bone as it sat in the ground and in storage. The contaminant DNA has to be identified and eliminated. Given the similarity between Neanderthal and modern human DNA, this can be especially difficult when the contamination comes from the people who excavated or analyzed the bone.
2:28

🚨EPSTEIN FILES STATE THE CREATED NEANDERTHALS CLONES Clones of Neanderthals were created in underground tunnels as stated in the Epstein files released by the DOJ government in 2026. It is impossible to ignore the truth at this point. The truth is stranger than fiction and we have not heard anything stranger than this happening in real life. Per Charlie T Griffen The first studies of Neanderthal DNA focused on the genetic sequences of mitochondria, the microscopic organelles that convert food to energy within cells. In 2005, however, 454 began a collaborative project with the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, to sequence the full genetic code of a Neanderthal woman who died in Croatia's Vindija cave 30,000 years ago. As the Neanderthal genome is painstakingly sequenced, the archaeologists and biologists who study it will be faced with an opportunity that seemed like science fiction just 10 years ago. They will be able to look at the genetic blueprint of humankind's nearest relative and understand its biology as intimately as our own. In addition to giving scientists the ability to answer questions about Neanderthals' relationship to our own species--did we interbreed, are we separate species, who was smarter--the Neanderthal genome may be useful in researching medical treatments. Newly developed techniques could make cloning Neanderthal cells or body parts a reality within a few years. The ability to use the genes of extinct hominins is going to force the field of paleoanthropology into some unfamiliar ethical territory. There are still technical obstacles, but soon it could be possible to use that long-extinct genome to safely create a healthy, living Neanderthal clone. Should it be done? At the 454 Life Sciences offices, Gerald Irzyk, Jason Affourtit, and Thomas Jarvie explain the process they use to read the chemicals that made up Neanderthal DNA and the genes that determined a large part of their biology. DNA has a shape, called a double helix, that makes it look like a twisted ladder. Each rung on the ladder is called a base-pair. The rungs are made up of a pair of chemicals called nucleotides--adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, which are usually referred to by their first initials. The sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA determines what genes an organism has and how they function. Max Planck Institute initially chose 454 because it had come up with a way to read hundreds of thousands of DNA sequences at a time. Genome-sequencing technology is advancing at a rate comparable to computer processing power. Putting the fragments themselves in order can be a little tricky. "At first glance, it's just this completely random assemblage of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs," says Irzyk. "But it turns out there are patterns and motifs, and sometimes these are very specific to a group of organisms." For the Neanderthal sample, the human and chimpanzee genomes were used as references for checking the sequence. Working with ancient DNA can be much more problematic than sequencing genetic material from living species. Within hours of death, cells begin to break down in a process called apoptosis. The dying cells release enzymes that chop up DNA into tiny pieces. In a human cell, this means that the entire three-billion-base-pair genome is reduced to fragments a few hundred base-pairs long or shorter. The DNA also goes through chemical changes that alter the nucleotides as it ages--C changes into T, and G turns into A--which can cause the gene sequence to be interpreted incorrectly. In the case of the Neanderthal sample, somewhere between 90 and 99 percent of the DNA came from bacteria and other contaminants that had found their way into the bone as it sat in the ground and in storage. The contaminant DNA has to be identified and eliminated. Given the similarity between Neanderthal and modern human DNA, this can be especially difficult when the contamination comes from the people who excavated or analyzed the bone.

SANTINO

54,099 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

On the latest episode of Revelations, Jason Cammisa looks back on the life of the Tesla Model S, one of, if not the most influential car of all time. Tesla's first sedan wasn't perfect. But it was an industry game-changer not (just) because it was electric. Not (just) because it was from a startup. Not (just) because it set the stage for the company to create the world's bestselling passenger car. But because it was created using Silicon Valley-style continual iteration. Tesla never stopped improving the Model S — rolling in hundreds, or even thousands, of running changes during its production: both hardware and software. In the end, it shares merely 3% of its parts with the original 2012 Model S, roughly equivalent to 60 years of progress at a traditional automaker. Watch Now:
1:36

On the latest episode of Revelations, Jason Cammisa looks back on the life of the Tesla Model S, one of, if not the most influential car of all time. Tesla's first sedan wasn't perfect. But it was an industry game-changer not (just) because it was electric. Not (just) because it was from a startup. Not (just) because it set the stage for the company to create the world's bestselling passenger car. But because it was created using Silicon Valley-style continual iteration. Tesla never stopped improving the Model S — rolling in hundreds, or even thousands, of running changes during its production: both hardware and software. In the end, it shares merely 3% of its parts with the original 2012 Model S, roughly equivalent to 60 years of progress at a traditional automaker. Watch Now:

Hagerty

56,480 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Dr. Rose explained that this new “vaccine” pushes mRNA technology even further. The modified code doesn’t just tell the body to produce the spike protein—it instructs it to build the nanoparticle structure itself, a synthetic framework that could fundamentally change how genetic material behaves inside human cells. She warned that while it may sound like cutting-edge science, it opens a Pandora’s box of biological questions. What happens when the body begins assembling foreign scaffolds at a cellular level? To Jessica Rose 🤙, it is unmistakable proof that biotech has crossed yet another line before ever addressing the damage from the first. Watch the full interview: 👇
2:49

Dr. Rose explained that this new “vaccine” pushes mRNA technology even further. The modified code doesn’t just tell the body to produce the spike protein—it instructs it to build the nanoparticle structure itself, a synthetic framework that could fundamentally change how genetic material behaves inside human cells. She warned that while it may sound like cutting-edge science, it opens a Pandora’s box of biological questions. What happens when the body begins assembling foreign scaffolds at a cellular level? To Jessica Rose 🤙, it is unmistakable proof that biotech has crossed yet another line before ever addressing the damage from the first. Watch the full interview: 👇

Vigilant Fox 🦊

11,511 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Scientists Shocked: Peer-Reviewed Paper Confirms COVID Vaccine Nightmare A bombshell peer-reviewed study has confirmed what the “conspiracy theorists” have been warning for years: Pfizer’s mRNA COVID shot is contaminated with not just bacterial plasmid DNA, but with the SV40 promoter, a viral sequence that may interfere with how your genes function or even become part of your DNA. Dr. Mikolaj Raszek of Merogenomics reviewed the paper and said, “We finally have it—the very first published scientific evidence showing that the mRNA vaccine, Pfizer vaccines, were contaminated with bacterial plasmid DNA.” Researchers tested sealed vials—both monovalent and bivalent—and found DNA fragments embedded within the lipid nanoparticles. That's important because these nanoparticles are designed to deliver genetic material directly into the body’s cells. So the DNA wasn’t just contamination—it was effectively delivered like a package. Raszek pointed out that the fragments included the SV40 enhancer, which he called “extremely dangerous.” This viral promoter can help foreign DNA enter the nucleus of human cells, raising the risk of accidental genome integration. In plain English: fragments from the vaccine could potentially alter your DNA. How did this happen? What did Pfizer know beforehand? Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, MPH joins the show with to discuss.
13:50

Scientists Shocked: Peer-Reviewed Paper Confirms COVID Vaccine Nightmare A bombshell peer-reviewed study has confirmed what the “conspiracy theorists” have been warning for years: Pfizer’s mRNA COVID shot is contaminated with not just bacterial plasmid DNA, but with the SV40 promoter, a viral sequence that may interfere with how your genes function or even become part of your DNA. Dr. Mikolaj Raszek of Merogenomics reviewed the paper and said, “We finally have it—the very first published scientific evidence showing that the mRNA vaccine, Pfizer vaccines, were contaminated with bacterial plasmid DNA.” Researchers tested sealed vials—both monovalent and bivalent—and found DNA fragments embedded within the lipid nanoparticles. That's important because these nanoparticles are designed to deliver genetic material directly into the body’s cells. So the DNA wasn’t just contamination—it was effectively delivered like a package. Raszek pointed out that the fragments included the SV40 enhancer, which he called “extremely dangerous.” This viral promoter can help foreign DNA enter the nucleus of human cells, raising the risk of accidental genome integration. In plain English: fragments from the vaccine could potentially alter your DNA. How did this happen? What did Pfizer know beforehand? Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, MPH joins the show with to discuss.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

303,171 просмотров • 1 год назад

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.
4:50

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 просмотров • 1 год назад

Building mirror life could wipe out everything on Earth. Life as we know it is built on left-handed amino acids, encoded by RNA and DNA made from right-handed sugars. Because all organisms share a common evolutionary origin, this molecular handedness is universal. In theory, we could synthesize life using right-handed amino acids—a mirror version of biology. But such life would be incompatible with all existing ecosystems. It could outcompete and destroy everything. Worse, with future technology, someone could engineer mirror-life bioweapons—bacteria immune to all our natural defenses. George Church, the godfather of synthetic biology and co-author of the mirror life paper, came on the podcast. His answer about how we might prevent a mirror-life disaster? Well, let's say it doesn't inspire much confidence.
1:48

Building mirror life could wipe out everything on Earth. Life as we know it is built on left-handed amino acids, encoded by RNA and DNA made from right-handed sugars. Because all organisms share a common evolutionary origin, this molecular handedness is universal. In theory, we could synthesize life using right-handed amino acids—a mirror version of biology. But such life would be incompatible with all existing ecosystems. It could outcompete and destroy everything. Worse, with future technology, someone could engineer mirror-life bioweapons—bacteria immune to all our natural defenses. George Church, the godfather of synthetic biology and co-author of the mirror life paper, came on the podcast. His answer about how we might prevent a mirror-life disaster? Well, let's say it doesn't inspire much confidence.

Dwarkesh Podcast

182,617 просмотров • 1 год назад

RFK Jr. breaks down the numbers behind the rotavirus vaccine. “In this country, the death rate from rotavirus prior to the introduction of the vaccine was about three kids a year.” “Since the introduction of the vaccine, one of the studies shows that it’s dropped to two deaths a year.” “That means you’re giving three million vaccines a year to kids and you’re saving one life.” “If any of those vaccines are causing a death, that completely cancels any benefit out of all of those vaccines.” “The first rotavirus vaccine they approved caused intussusception at such high rates it was clearly much worse than the disease.” “Even the idea that we needed it in this country was kind of crazy.” “The European countries don’t require it.”
1:42

RFK Jr. breaks down the numbers behind the rotavirus vaccine. “In this country, the death rate from rotavirus prior to the introduction of the vaccine was about three kids a year.” “Since the introduction of the vaccine, one of the studies shows that it’s dropped to two deaths a year.” “That means you’re giving three million vaccines a year to kids and you’re saving one life.” “If any of those vaccines are causing a death, that completely cancels any benefit out of all of those vaccines.” “The first rotavirus vaccine they approved caused intussusception at such high rates it was clearly much worse than the disease.” “Even the idea that we needed it in this country was kind of crazy.” “The European countries don’t require it.”

MAHA Action

105,786 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

☝️"When the United States created the atomic bomb and the Soviet Union entered the race, actively developing its own nuclear program, it relied on both Russian and foreign scientists, primarily Germans. Soviet intelligence also received a lot of information from the US; suffice it to recall the Rosenberg couple, who were executed in the electric chair. However, they didn't obtain this information; they were merely transferring it. So who did obtain it? The scientists themselves, those who were developing the atomic bomb. Why did they do it? Because they understood the dangers. They had let the genie out of the bottle and knew it couldn't be put back in. I believe this international team of scientists, who were more intelligent than the politicians, provided this information to the Soviet Union of their own volition to restore the nuclear balance in the world. And what are we doing now? We are trying to destroy that balance. And that is a grave mistake." - President Putin.
1:27

☝️"When the United States created the atomic bomb and the Soviet Union entered the race, actively developing its own nuclear program, it relied on both Russian and foreign scientists, primarily Germans. Soviet intelligence also received a lot of information from the US; suffice it to recall the Rosenberg couple, who were executed in the electric chair. However, they didn't obtain this information; they were merely transferring it. So who did obtain it? The scientists themselves, those who were developing the atomic bomb. Why did they do it? Because they understood the dangers. They had let the genie out of the bottle and knew it couldn't be put back in. I believe this international team of scientists, who were more intelligent than the politicians, provided this information to the Soviet Union of their own volition to restore the nuclear balance in the world. And what are we doing now? We are trying to destroy that balance. And that is a grave mistake." - President Putin.

🇷🇺Russia is not Enemy

123,075 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад