Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

Klevius CV

Are you or your representative(s) for or against basic Human Rights equality?

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is super intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* The son of one of Sweden's best chess-players and an even more intelligent Finnish mother. He was mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgensteins's successor at Cambridge. However, G H v Wright sadly didn't fully realize back then (1991) the true power of the last chapter, Khoi, San and Bantu, in Klevius book. Today, if still alive, he would surely see it.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Forerunners of the next iceage?

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Warning for a muslim robot!

BBC means global faked/filtered "news"/"info" - and propaganda for Human Rights violating sharia.

BBC means global faked/filtered "news"/"info" - and propaganda for Human Rights violating sharia.

Klevius: Face it, Wikipedia, BBC etc. fake media - Finland was first in the world with full suffrag

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia (compare OIC)

There's no true islam without Human Rights violating sharia (compare OIC)

PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights, we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

Peter Klevius 1986 zero budget experimental refugee video

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Peter Klevius theories on Thalamus/cognition and human evolution somehow bypassed John Hawks despite being clearly visible on the web for some 15 years.

Are scientists holding science back? 


John Hawks is described by Wikipedia as the author of a widely read paleoanthropology blog. He is also an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. However, Klevius wonders if he also reads other blogs of importance for his topic? Or is it just that he doesn't like bloggers who defend basic Human Rights? However, Klevius use to read Hawks blog which in many respect is a decent one. However, when John Hawks writes: "Humans, with a rapidly evolving brain and vastly larger cortex, might be just the lineage in which “wrong” connections might have a positive effect once in a while", he would have greatly benefitted by taking Klevius seriously. There can't be "wrong connections" because such a statement is only possible from an outsider's existence-centric (see below) and subjective assessment.




His latest posting refers to a paper by Michael Halassa about the Thalamus, i.e. a topic in which Peter Klevius has been the absolute world leader since 1992-94. In Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411) Klevius laid down the philosophical foundation, and crossed the boundaries between consciousness-observation-understanding-language and wrapped it all in one, i.e. adaptation.

According to Klevius 1990-92 analysis everything is adaptation. There's no principal analytical difference between how planets adapt to their star or how humans adapt to their environment. And no dude, this is not "simplifying away" or diluting it. When the bedrock of the Indo-Australian Plate met with the bedrock of the Asian plate the landscape was almost flat. However, look at the Himalayas today. Same rock but a completely different appearance due to adaptation.

Consciousness is neither simple nor complicated - and certainly not a "mystery". The real mystery is why people "mystify" it - from Penrose's hiding in quantum tubulars to Koch's escape into the brain's olfactory channels. The former outside falsifiability, and the latter outside any kind of scientific consensus and, more importantly, clearly related to the fact that brain evolution started as a smell organ adapted to getting food, which later on was mounted with additional gadgets (vision, hearing etc.) and among vertebrats connected via Thalamus. In short, as Klevius wrote 1992, this is why olfactory "memories" feel so different and powerful. This is also why claustrum is focused towards the olfactory lobes, i.e. functioning as a "translator" and transferer of these signals which weren't originally connected to thalamus at all.

To prove adaptation (not "mind")Klevius conducted the ultimate experiment (1992:30-33):

Translation from Resursbegär (Demand for Resources 1992 p 32-33).

A critique of Habermas' dichotomy observing/understanding:

Observing a stone = perception understood by the viewer
I observe a stone = utterance that is intelligible for an other person

Although I assume that Habermas would consider the latter example communication because of an allusion (via the language) to the former, I would argue that this "extension" of the meaning of the utterance cannot be demonstrated as being essentially different from the original observation/understanding. Consequently there exists no "abstract" meaning of symbols, which fact of course eliminates the symbol itself. The print color/waves (sound or light etc) of the word "stone" does not differ from the corresponding ones of a real or a fake (e.g. papier maché) stone.

The dichotomy observation/understanding hence cannot be upheld because there does not exist a theoretically defendable difference. What is usually expressed in language games as understanding is a historical - and often hierarchical - aspect of a particular phenomenon/association. Thus it is not surprising that Carl Popper and John C. Eccles tend to use culture-evolutionary interpretations to make pre-civilized human cultures fit in Popper´s World 1 to World 3 system of intellectual transition.

 Excerpt from EMAH (1994-2003):



If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later experience. What seems to be true at a particular moment may turn out to be something else in the next, and what we call understanding is merely retrospection.

The conventional way of grasping the connection between sensory input and behavioral output can be described as observation, i.e. as sensory stimulation followed by understanding. The understanding that it is a stone, for example, follows the observation of a stone. This understanding might in turn produce behavior such as verbal information. To do these simple tasks, however, the observer has to be equipped with some kind of "knowledge," i.e., shared experience that makes him/her culturally competent to "understand" and communicate. This understanding includes the cultural heritage embedded in the very concept of a stone, i.e.it's a prerequsite for observation. As a consequence it's not meaningful to separate observation and understanding. This, of course, doesn't exclude "local" (non-analytical) use of the terms in speech and literature etc. for the purpose of catching subtle nyances.

Categorization belongs to the language department, which, on the brain level, is only one among many other behavioral reactions. But due to its capability to paraphrase itself, it has the power to confuse our view on how we synchronize our stock of experience. When we watch a stone, our understanding synchronizes with the accumulated inputs associated with the concept of a stone. "It must be a stone because it looks like a stone," we think. As a result of such synchronization, our brain intends to continue on the same path and perhaps do something more (with "intention"). For example, we might think (as a result of our adaptation to the situation), "Let's tell someone about it." The logical behavior that follows can be an expression such as, "Hey look, it's a stone out there." Thus, what we get in the end is a concept of a stone and, after a closer look, our pattern of experience hidden in it. If the stone, when touched, turns out to be made of paper maché, then the previous perception is not deepened, but instead, switched to a completely new one.

It's almost frightening how often one hears researchers/scientists/philosophers etc. who think they are at least average in intelligence, telling others that "previously we didn't understand what X was", for example that "water consists of molecules and atoms". This kind of schizophrenic "thinking" reflects the depth of the mind/body hoax many are trapped in.

One might say that a stone in a picture is a "real" stone, while the word 'stone' written on a piece of paper is not. The gap here is not due to different representations but rather to different contexts. When one tries to equalize observation with understanding, the conventional view of primitive and sophisticated thinking might be put in question. We still act like complex worms, and sophistication is only a matter of biased views built on different stocks of experience (adaptaion) and the overwhelming complexity that appears chaotic. Moreover, a worm, just like a computer, is more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, meaning, explanation and understanding are all descriptions of the same basic principle of how we synchronize (adapt) perception with previous experience. For the fetus or the newborn child, the inexperienced (unsynchronized, or uncertainty/"god" if you prefer) part of the inside-outside communication is huge compared to a grown up. Hence the chaotic outside world (i.e., the lack of its patterns of meaningfulness) has to be copied (adapted) in a stream of experience, little by little, into the network couplings of the brain. When the neural pattern matches the totality (meaningfulness) its information potential disappears. Our brain doesn't store information - it kills information. From an analytical point of view "storing of information" is an oxymoron. On top of this, there is a continuous growth of new neurons, which have to be connected to the network. As a result of these processes, the outside world is, at least partly, synchronized with the inside, "mental" world. Heureka, the baby appears to think and exist! In other words, the baby records changes against a background of already synchronized (adapted) inputs.

* see "existence-centrism" in Demand for Resources for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!

1994, after having read a paper in Nature about two-way Thalamic communications, in a letter to Francis Crick Klevius presented EMAH (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis) as a commentary to Crick's The Astonishing Hypothsesis. Here Klevius connected what he had written already 1990 (and a precursor back in 1981) with a recent paper in Nature about thalamic two-way communication with the cortex.

 A lousy VHS copy of Peter Klevius 1986 refugee video was uploaded 2007 and can be seen here.

Already before that, over a cup of coffee in Finland, Klevius had explained to his slightly perplexed sound engineer friend (who mixed the music in Klevius Saigon video) that Klevius girlfriend (who sat at the same table) was principally not unlike a brick when it comes to consciousness and mind. Tension was released when Klevius added himself and his friend in the same category.

Actually, since 2004 the web has been scattered by Klevius images and text referring to his EMAH theory and human evolution. Everyone the slightest interested in cognition/brain/consciousness and anthropology should have been able to stumble on Klevius.


EMAH has been on the web since 2003 so there's no way paleo-anthropologist John Hawks could have avoided seeing it because when you image google on the two most interesting Homos ever found, i.e. 'floresiensis denisovan', Klevius comes up first. Or just type 'klevius' on normal Google search and see what pics come up.


Peter Klevius EMAH theory:

Peter Klevius contribution to the AI/consciousness debate.

The thoughts below were first presented 1979-81 in an article and correspondence with Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge), and later published in a book 1992, a letter to Francis Crick (Salk) 1994, and on the web 2003.

Evolution means change - a fact missed by many neo-creationists*


* Exemplified with the eager "humanifying" of Neandertals etc. extinct creatures. Or the equally eager (not to say desperate) search for a hiding place where "consciousness" can be protected against de-mystifiers such as e.g. Peter Klevius.


In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius crossed the boundaries between consciousness-observation-understanding-language and wrapped it all in one, i.e. adaptation.
According to Klevius analysis everything is adaptation. There's no principal analytical difference between how planets adapt to their star or how humans adapt to their environment. And no dude, this is not "simplifying away" or diluting it. When the bedrock of the Indo-Australian Plate met with the bedrock of the Asian plate the landscape was almost flat. However, look at the Himalayas today. Same rock but a completely different and extremely wrinkled appearance and a new name, mountain range.

Consciousness is neither simple nor complicated - and certainly not a "mystery". The real mystery is how people "mystify" it - from Penrose's hiding in quantum tubulars to Koch's escape into the brain's olfactory channels. The former outside falsifiability, and the latter outside any kind of scientific consensus and, more importantly, clearly related to the fact that brain evolution started as a smell organ which later on was mounted with additional gadgets (vision, hearing etc.) connected via Thalamus. In short, as Klevius wrote 1992, this is why olfactory "memories" feel so different. This is also why claustrum is focused towards the olfactory lobes, i.e. functioning as a "translator" and transferer of these signals which weren't originally connected to thalamus at all.

And please, don't get stuck in the frontal lobe just because you find some difference compared to other parts of the brain. The simple reason is just that the frontal lobe happens to be the last expansion in brain evolution and is lacking in non-humans.

The  "mystery" of drivingness - or carness.


An undriving car doesn't move.

A selfdriving car makes intentional decisions based on history and present. These decisions wouldn't be any different with a human driver with exactly the same information available. A surprising looking choice of route may be just based on info npt available for the surprised.


Humans have humanness rather than "consciousness"*


* Humans have skin. So were's the mystery of "skinness"?
According to Peter Klevius (1981, 1992, 1994, 2003) humans have trapped themselves in language and have a borderline problem re. what can be said across the border between humans and "the rest".

In Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411), Peter Klevius presented the following - his own (as far as he is aware of) - original observations re. evolution and awareness/mind:

Existence is change - not creation out of nothing.

Among so called "primitive" societies which had had no contact with monotheisms, the very thought that something could appear out of nothing was impossible.

So why did monotheisms come up with such a ridiculous idea? It's very simple. The racist "chosen people" supremacist ideology created a "god" that was not part of the world he (yes, he) had created out of nothing, i.e. making a clean sheet on which the chosen ones could exist (see the chapter Existencecentrism in Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411).

Culture is that (arbitrarily defined and bordered) part of adaptation that is shared by others.


Warning/advise: To better your understanding of Klevius writings you need to realize that he is extremely critical of how concepts are created and used. Not in a stiff/absolute sense of meaning, but rather how concepts may cluelessly (or deliberately) migrate within a particular discourse. So when Dennet talks about "deliberate design" he contrasts it against "clueless design", although such a distinction isn't possible. Evolution is neither clueless nor deliberate. And whatever we are up to it can't be distinguished from evolution other than as a purely human assessment - in which case it can't include evolution. Only humans can evaluate human behavior, which fact renders such evaluations pointless outside the realm of humans. Getting this seems to constitute a main obstacle in debates about AI and singularity.

This is why Klevius always refers to the individual human's negative Human Rights, i.e. everyone we agree is a human. This is also why Klevius can emphasize the Denisova bracelet, genetics etc. finds in Siberia/Altai as proof of modern humans evolving there (with some help from island South East Asia, not in Africa. Most humans living today would have been incapable of intellectually perform the task because the IQ peak has long since been diluted in the mass of humans. We're all one family of humans but the top of the line of human intelligence was a combination of island shrinking brains and its genetic transfrer to big skulled relatives in the north - as Klevius has pointed out since 2004 on the web.

Peter Klevius EMAH update on "consciousness" 2018: 


Acknowledgement: I've never in my life met anyone who I've felt being more intelligent* than I am. This means I've had no reason warshipping human intelligence. And whole my life I've been told it's unfair that I see things faster and clearer than others - or even worse, that I "turn black into white" (some real idiots from the 1970-80s). But how could it be "unfair" when I can't use it for my own advantage without others sooner or later catching up and shaming me? And when you're in the front line no one understands and therefore doesn't pay you. Which fact has added valuable neutrality and reduced malign bias to/from Klevius' analysis.

* Klevius intelligence was perhaps best described by the Finnish neuroscientist, J. Juurmaa, who in the 1990s wrote: "Peter Kleviuksen ajatuksen kulku on ilmavan lennokas ja samalla iskevän ytimekäs" which translated to English would mean something like: "Peter Klevius' thought process is easily eloquent yet simultaneously concisely punchy." This he wrote in a long letter answering Klevius question about the effects on the visual cortex on individuals who have been blind from birth. This inquiry was part of Klevius check up of his already published EMAH theory, so to get a qualified confirmation that the "visual cortex" in born blinds is fully employed with other things than vision. Juurmaa's description of Klevius  is in line with philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright's 1980 assessment, and more importantly with Klevius own experience, and perhaps most importantly when assessing AI/deep learning etc.

Only in true science and Human Rights does Klevius intelligence matter. And with AI singularity "pure" science will be dead anyway (although some idiots will never get it). Why? Because human existencecentrism (look it up in Klevius 1992 book pp 21-22) will only follow AI to the point of singularity.

Peter Klevius has - since he at age 14 read Einstein's and Barnett's book - been fascinated with human aversion of checking themselves in the mirror of existencecentrism.

Future democracy will be cloud based and filtered through (negative) Human Rights equality. This means that we get rid of the distorting bottleneck our politicians now constitute.

This also means the definitive end of islam as we know it, i.e. as a Human Rights violating excuse for racism, sexism, and power greed.

It's astonishing how the avoidance of negative Human Rights affects every debate. And most of this is due to our politicians' defense of the Saudi dictator family. Why? Simply because they stand as the "guardians" of islam and 1.6 Billion muslims which are all lumped together and protected by the label "islamophobia" which in fact only protects the Saudi dictator family and those who want to deal with it and its Human Rights violating sharia(e.g. OIC etc).

There's no way to copy a brain without a total break between individuals. That's perhaps one definition of what it means to be a human.

What makes humans individuals (atoms) and robots collective. Robot memories are shared and if you destroy the hardware, the software will still be alive and well.

However, a human individual is extremely vulnerable to individual extinction.

And a "pet" copy is an other individual - although it remembers and behaves like the original.


Peter Klevius in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):


The basis of existence is change, and causality constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in existing structures are reinforced. This stands in opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e. energy equilibrium) where time/change finally ends. Someone might then say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in causality's road towards uniformity (Klevius 1981, 1992 - text copied from Klevius 1981 article Demand for Resources).


The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH)

by Peter Klevius


1991, years before Crick's book, the original idea was presented for Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's own choice of successor at his Cambridge chair), then published in Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411), and 1994 presented for Francis Crick and 2004 presented on the world wide web.

Abstract: Consciousness may be seen as environmental adaptation rather than something "uniqely human". Although neo-cortex constitutes the mass of adaptations Thalamus is the least discussed yet perhaps the most important piece in the "puzzle of mind" due to its central function as the main relay station between body actions, brain and environment. A critical assessment of concepts such as: observation/understanding, mind/body, free will, knowledge and language reveals an inescapable awareness in the Thalamic "meet-puts". In conclusion memories hence may be better described as associations causing linguistic traps (i.e. self-inflicted "problems" produced in language) rather than as distinct entities. The continuity model proposed in EMAH avoids the limitations of a "discrete packets of information" model, and without Cartesian dualism or the Homunculus fallacy.

Note. In some respect the neural network of "lower" systems such as the spinal cord and cerebellum by far outperforms the cortex. This is because of different tasks (fast motorics and slow adaptation) and due difference in processing. (Copyright Peter Klevius).


Introduction

Understanding how social behavior and its maintenance in human and other forms of life (incl. plants etc) evolved has nothing to do with “the balance between self interest and co-operative behavior” but all to do with kinship and friendship adaptation. Everything is "self-interest" - how could it not be? Although humans may be attributed a more chaotic (i.e. more incalculable) "personality", they are, like life in general, just adaptive "robots" (i.e. active fighters against entropy – see Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411). Misunderstanding (or plain ignorance of – alternatively ideological avoidance of) kin recognition/friendship (symbiosis), and AI (robotics) pave the way for the formulation of unnecessary, not to say construed, problems which, in an extension, may become problematic themselves precisely because they hinder an open access for direct problem solving (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist – kinship vs. social state).

Mentalists trap themselves in selfinflicted astonishment over phenomenons they think are beyond determinism. When Chomsky says "there are things beyond comprehension" he should ask himself: Who are you to talk about things beyond comprehension (compare 'existencecentrism' in Klevius Demand for Resources, 1992 ISBN 9173288411), i.e. something that can't be asked - without just pushing the border a little - or rather, just a new comprehensible adaptation. And if it seems incomprehensible, it's no more so than e.g. Donald Duck (see below).


The Future of a "Gap" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Human: What is a human being? Can the answer be found in a non-rational a priori statement (compare e.g. the axiomatic Human Rights individual) or in a logical analysis of the alleged "gap" between human beings and others? The following analysis uses an "anti-gap" approach. It also rests on the struggle and success of research performed in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), automation/robotics etc.

Signal: A "signal gap" is commonly understood as a break in the transition from input to output, i.e., from perception to behavior. Mentalists use to fill the gap with "mind" and "consciousness" while behaviorists don't bother because they can't even see it. A five minute timelaps of Earth spanning 4.5 Billion years would make a very lively planet. However, where's "consiousness" between input (the single frames) and output (the running video)? Or, what/whom should we allow to possess "consciousness"? And if we limit it only to humans we are stuck with it being just a human thing - hence impossible to use in general meaning. An easier way out is to avoid the signal "gap" and call it what it is, a network. But a network that continuously builds new patterns on top of already existing ones. 

Matter: Berkeley never believed in matter. What you experience is what you get and the rest is in the hand of "God" (i.e. uncertainty). This view makes him a super-determinist without "real" matter. Klevius just adds the fact that Berkeley's "God" is truly metaphysical and therefore not worthy of even talking about.

Mind: The confusing mind-body debate originated in the Cartesian dualism, which divides the world into two different substances, which, when put together, are assumed to make the world intelligible. However, on the contrary, they seem to have created a new problem based on this very assumption. But a problem that has become popular among those who want to talk metaphysics, i.e. giving an impression of talking about what can't be talked about.

Free will: Following a mind-body world view, many scholars prefer to regard human beings as intentional animals fueled by free will. It is, however, a challenging task to defend such a philosophical standpoint. Not even Martin Luther managed to do it, but rather transferred free will to God despite loud protests from Erasmus. Although Luther's thoughts in other respects have had a tremendous influence on Western thinking, this particular angle of view has been less emphasized. However, 'free will' can only be used locally.

Future: When asked about the "really human" way of thinking, many mentalists refer to our capacity to "calculate" the future. But is there really a future out there? All concepts of the future seem trapped in the past. We cannot actually talk about a certain date in the future as real future. What we do talk about is, for example, just a date in a calendar. Although it is a good guess that we are going to die, the basis for this reasoning always lies in the past. The present hence is the impenetrable mirror between the "real future" and ourselves. Consequently, every our effort to approach this future brings us back in history. Closest to future we seem to be when we live intensely in the immediate present without even thinking about the future. As a consequence the gap between sophisticated human planning and "instinctual" animal behavior seems less obvious. Is primitive thinking that primitive after all? And isn't 'instinct' just an excuse for ignorance?

An additional aspect of future is that neither youth, deep freezing or a pill against aging will do as insurance for surviving tomorrow. The human individual is lost in a crash whereas the robot brain safely hovers in the cloud - in many copies.


Observation and Understanding (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later experience. What seems to be true at a particular moment may turn out to be something else in the next, and what we call understanding is merely retrospection.

The conventional way of grasping the connection between sensory input and behavioral output can be described as observation, i.e. as sensory stimulation followed by understanding. The understanding that it is a stone, for example, follows the observation of a stone. This understanding might in turn produce behavior such as verbal information. To do these simple tasks, however, the observer has to be equipped with some kind of "knowledge," i.e., shared experience that makes him/her culturally competent to "understand" and communicate. This understanding includes the cultural heritage embedded in the very concept of a stone, i.e.it's a prerequsite for observation. As a consequence it's not meaningful to separate observation and understanding. This, of course, doesn't exclude "local" (non-analytical) use of the terms in speech and literature etc. for the purpose of catching subtle nyances.

Categorization belongs to the language department, which, on the brain level, is only one among many other behavioral reactions. But due to its capability to paraphrase itself, it has the power to confuse our view on how we synchronize our stock of experience. When we watch a stone, our understanding synchronizes with the accumulated inputs associated with the concept of a stone. "It must be a stone because it looks like a stone," we think. As a result of such synchronization, our brain intends to continue on the same path and perhaps do something more (with "intention"). For example, we might think (as a result of our adaptation to the situation), "Let's tell someone about it." The logical behavior that follows can be an expression such as, "Hey look, it's a stone out there." Thus, what we get in the end is a concept of a stone and, after a closer look, our pattern of experience hidden in it. If the stone, when touched, turns out to be made of paper maché, then the previous perception is not deepened, but instead, switched to a completely new one.

It's almost frightening how often one hears researchers/scientists/philosophers etc. who think they are at least average in intelligence, telling others that "previously we didn't understand what X was", for example that "water consists of molecules and atoms". This kind of schizophrenic "thinking" reflects the depth of the mind/body hoax many are trapped in.

One might say that a stone in a picture is a "real" stone, while the word 'stone' written on a piece of paper is not. The gap here is not due to different representations but rather to different contexts. When one tries to equalize observation with understanding, the conventional view of primitive and sophisticated thinking might be put in question. We still act like complex worms, and sophistication is only a matter of biased views built on different stocks of experience (adaptaion) and the overwhelming complexity that appears chaotic. Moreover, a worm, just like a computer, is more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, meaning, explanation and understanding are all descriptions of the same basic principle of how we synchronize (adapt) perception with previous experience. For the fetus or the newborn child, the inexperienced (unsynchronized, or uncertainty/"god" if you prefer) part of the inside-outside communication is huge compared to a grown up. Hence the chaotic outside world (i.e., the lack of its patterns of meaningfulness) has to be copied (adapted) in a stream of experience, little by little, into the network couplings of the brain. When the neural pattern matches the totality (meaningfulness) its information potential disappears. Our brain doesn't store information - it kills information. From an analytical point of view "storing of information" is an oxymoron. On top of this, there is a continuous growth of new neurons, which have to be connected to the network. As a result of these processes, the outside world is, at least partly, synchronized with the inside, "mental" world. Heureka, the baby appears to think and exist! In other words, the baby records changes against a background of already synchronized (adapted) inputs.

* see "existence-centrism" in Demand for Resources (1992) for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!


The Category of the Uniquely Human Category Mistake (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

It's meaningless to state that we are the best (or the worst) humankind. However, category mistakes re. humans and non-humans are still common and many researchers/scientists don't even seem to realize how carelessly they handle this important distinction.

It's equally meaningless to ask what something is that we don't know what 'it' is. 'Consciousness' is easily understood when used in comparison with 'unconcious'. However, how stupid is it when we mystify the term beyond comprehension by squeezing in random additional properties and then ask the question: What is this mystery with consciousness".

A main difficulty in formulating the concept of consciousness is our pride (presumably we should have been equally proud as mice) and our tautological belief in "something uniquely human", However, if we try to follow the die-hard determinists, we would find free will and destiny easier to cope with, and also that the concept of "the unique human being" is rather a question of point of view and carelessly crossing borders of concepts.

Following this line of thought, I suggest turning to old Berkeley as well as to Ryle but excluding Skinnerian Utopias. Those who think the word determinism sounds rude and blunt can try to adorn it with complexity to make it look more chaotic. Chaos here means something you cannot overview no matter how deterministic it is. We seem to like complexity just because we cannot follow the underlying determinism. The same could be said about what it really is to be a human? A passion for uncertainty, i.e. life itself. Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis: "... your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

This statement is easy to agree on, so let me continue with another, perhaps more useful, quote from Crick: "Categories are not given to us as absolutes. They are human inventions." I think these two statements create an efficient basis for further investigations into the mystery of thinking. Hopefully you will forgive me now as I'm going to abolish not only memory but also free will and consciousness altogether. Then, I will go even one step further to deny that there are any thoughts (pictures, representations, etc.) at all in the cortex. At this point, many might agree, particularly regarding the cortex of the author of this text.

The main problem here is the storage of memories, with all their colors, smells, feelings and sounds. Crick suggests the dividing of memory into three parts: episodic, categorical and procedural. While that would be semantically useful, I'm afraid it would act more like an obstacle in the investigation of the brain, because it presupposes that the hardware uses the same basis of classification and, like a virus, hence infects our analyses.

The analysis presented here is the result of de-categorization. The only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of nature (and 'nature' includes all artefacts, non-human as well as human ones) is the structure and complexity most (but not all) humans possess. In other words, there's no point at which something "special" happens. This is why Klevius in 1994 said that there's no principal difference between a brick and his girlfriend - which comment rose the eyebrow on his pal who admired Klevius girlfriend.

Instead of categorization, this analysis sees only adaptation to the surrounding world incl. one's own brain, which condtitutes of layers of previous adaptations where the latest one is awareness, consciousness, or the present now if you like.


Nerves, Loops and "Meet-puts" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

According to Crick, "each thalamic area also receives massive connections from the cortical areas to which it sends information. The exact purpose of these back connections is not yet known." In the following paragraphs, I will outline a hypothetical model in line with this question. The interpretation of the interface between brain and its surrounding as it is presented here has the same starting point as Crick's theory but divides thinking into a relay/network system in the cortex and the perception terminals (or their representatives in the thalamus) around the body like an eternal kaleidoscope. Under this model, imagination would be a back-projected pattern of nerve signals, associated to the original events that caused them but with the signals faded and localized as "internal" based on direction of nerve signals. This view suggests that there are not only inputs and outputs but also whst one might name "meet-puts," i.e., when an input signal goes through and evolves into other signals in the cortex, these new signals meet other input signals in the thalamus.

There is no limit to the possible number of pattern/association in such a system, and there is no need for memory storage but rather, adaptive network couplings. These "couplings," or signal pathways, are constantly running in loops (not all simultaneously but some at any given moment, i.e. e.g. what we call awareness) from the nerve endings in our bodies through the network in the cortex and back again to the thalamus. Of course the back-projected signals have to be discriminated from incoming signals, thereby avoiding confusion regarding fantasy and reality. But this process, though still unknown, could be quite simple and perhaps detected simply based on the direction where it comes from. As a consequence of the loops, the back-projected pattern differs from the incoming signals, or the stimuli. Therefore, every signal from the body/perceptions, hormonal signals and so on, either finds its familiar old route or pattern of association in the network (established/adapted experiences) or creates new connections (new experiences) that can be of varying durability depending on how they settle with older associations. For example, if someone is blind from the moment of birth, s/he will have normal neuronal activity in the cortex area of vision. On the other hand, in case of an acquired blindness, the level of activity in the same area will become significantly lower over time. This is logical according to the EMAH model because, in the former case, the neurons have never become involved in association patterns of vision but were engaged in other tasks. In the latter case, the neurons have partly remained in previous vision patterns, which are no longer in use, while the rest has moved onto other new tasks.

It is important to note that human thinking, contrary to what today's computers do, involves the perceptions that originate from the chemical processes in the body's hormonal system, what we carelessly name "emotions." This, I think, is the main source behind the term "human behavior." The difference between man and machine is a source of concern but, as I see it, there is no point in making a "human machine". But perhaps someone might be interested in building a "human-like machine".


Body vs. Environment - a History of Illusions (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

The surface of our body isn't the border of consciousness. A better candidate is the neuronal system/Thalamus.

According to the EMAH model, nerves define our body. Thus, our hormonal signals inside our body can be viewed as belonging to the environment surrounding the nerveous system. As the meaning of life is to uphold complexity by guarding the borders, it's ultimately a fight against entropy. In this struggle, life is supported by a certain genetic structure and metabolism, which synchronizes its dealings (adaptation) with the surrounding environment. Balancing and neutralizing these dealings is a job done by nerves. Also consider Klevius gut bacterias with brain.

A major and crucial feature of this "body-guarding" mechanism is knowing difference in the direction between incoming signals and outgoing, processed signals. On top of this, both areas change continuously and thus have to be matched against each other to uphold or even improve the complexity. According to this model, people suffering from schizophrenia, just like healthy people, have no problem in discriminating between inputs and outputs. In fact, we can safely assume that the way they sometimes experience hallucinations is just like the way we experience nightmares. Both hallucinations and nightmares seem so frightening because they are perceived as incoming signals and confused as real perceptions. The problem for the schizophrenic lies in a defect in processing due to abnormal functions in and among the receptors on the neurons, which makes the association pattern unstable and "creative" in a way that is completely different compared with controlled fantasies. In the case of nightmares, the confusion is related to low and fluctuating energy levels during sleep. However, a frightful hallucination is always real because it is based on perceptions. What makes it an illusion is when it is viewed historically from a new point of view or experienced in a new "now," i.e., weighed and recorded as illusory from a standpoint that differs from the original one. In conclusion, one may argue that what really differentiates a frightful ghost from a harmless fantasy is that we know the latter being created inside our body, whereas we feel unsure about the former.



EMAH Computing as Matched Changes (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

EMAH does not support the idea that information is conveyed over distance, both in the peripheral and central nervous system, by the time of occurrence of action potential?

"All we are hypothesizing is that the activity in V1 does not directly enter awareness. What does enter awareness, we believe, is some form of the neural activity in certain higher visual areas, since they do project directly to prefrontal areas. This seems well established for cortical areas in the fifth tier of the visual hierarchy, such as MT and V4." (Crick & Koch, 1995a,b).  Hardware in a computer is, together with software (should be “a program” because this word signals programming more directly), specified at the outset. A high level of flexibility is made possible through the hardware's ability to unceasingly customize to incoming signals. This is partly what differs human beings from a machine. The rest of the differentiating factors include our perceptions of body chemistry such as hormones, etc. Programming a computer equipped with flexible hardware, i.e., to make them function like neurons, will, according to the EMAH-model, make the machine resemble the development of a fetus or infant. The development of this machine depends on the type of input terminals.

All input signals in the human, including emotional ones, involve a feedback process that matches the incoming signals from the environment with a changing copy of it in the form of representations (or rather adaptations) in the brain's network couplings. Life starts with a basic set of neurons, the connections of which grow as experiences come flooding in. This complex body of neuronal connections can be divided into permanent couplings, the sum of experiences that is your "personality," and temporary couplings, short-term more shallow "memories"/imprints for the time being.

A certain relay connection, if activated, results in a back-projected signal toward every receptor originally involved and thus creates, in collaboration with millions of other signals, a "collage" that we often call awareness. This is a constant flow and is in fact what we refer to as the mysterious consciousness. At this stage, it is important to note that every thought, fantasy or association is a mix of different kinds of signals. You cannot, for example, think about a color alone because it is always "in" or "on" something else (on a surface or embedded in some kind of substance) and connected by relay couplings to other perceptions or hormonal systems. "Meaning" is thus derived from a complex mix of the loops between perceptions and back-projected perceptions. This can be compared to a video camera system with a receiving screen and a back-projecting screen. The light meter is the "personality" and the aperture control the motor system. However, this system lacks the complex network system found in the cortex and thus has no possibility to "remember"/adapt. The recorded signal is of course not equivalent to the brain's network couplings because it is fixed. To save "bytes," our brains actually "forgets" what has been synchronized (adapted) rather than "remember" it. Such changes in the brain - not memories - are what build up our awareness. This process is in fact a common technique in transmitting compressed data. It's also similar to how we first actively learn to walk, and then stop thinking about it.


Short-Term Memories and Dreams (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

At any given moment, incoming signals, or perceptions, have to be understood through fitting and dissolving in a network of associations. If there are new, incomprehensible signals, they become linked (coupled) to the existing net and localized in the present pattern of associations. Whether their couplings finally vanish or stay depends on how they fit into the previous pattern and/or what happens next.

As a consequence of this coupling process - a process that could be described rather as a flow - memories in a conventional, semantic meaning do not exist, because everything happens now. Consciousness or awareness is something one cannot influence, but rather, something that involves an ongoing flow of information to and from nerve endings through the brain (a relay station incl. Thalamus). For every given moment (now) there is consequently only one possible way of acting, i.e. no absolute "free will". One cannot escape awareness or decisions because whatever one thinks, it is based on the past and will rule the future. Memories are thus similar to fantasies of the future, based on and created by experiences. Regarding short-term memory, I agree with Crick's view and hypothesis. But I certainly would not call it memory, only weaker or vanishing superficial couplings between neurons. Remember that with this model, the imagination of something or someone seen a long time ago always has to be projected back on the ports were it came through and thus enabling the appropriate association pattern. Although signals in each individual nerve are all equal, the back-projected pattern makes sense only as a combination of signals. The relay couplings in the cortex is the "code," and the receptor system is the "screen." Because this system does not allow any "escape" from the ever changing "now" which determines the dealings with the surrounding environment. Living creatures develope their software by living.

Dreams are, according to this model, remnants of short-term memories from the previous day(s), connected and mixed with relevant patterns of associations but excluding a major part of finer association structures. This is why dreams differ from conscious thinking. The lack of finer association structures is due to low or irregular activity levels in the brain during sleep. The results are "confused thoughts", which are quite similar to those of demented people, whose finer neural structures are damaged because of tissue death due to a lack of appropriate blood flow. Thus dreams are relevantly structured but in no way a secret message in the way psychoanalysts see them, whereas patients with dementia tend to go back to their childhood due to the irrevocable nature of the physical retardation process. Investigating dreams and their meaning by interpreting them is essentially the same as labeling them as psychological (in a psychoanalytical sense). A better and less biased result would emerge if the researcher actually lived with the subject the day before the dream occurred. Rather than analyzing pale and almost vanished childhood experiences from a view trapped in theoretical prejudices that describe an uncertain future, the researcher should perhaps put more efforts in the logic of the presence.





Donald Duck and a Stone in the Holy Land of Language (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Wittgenstein: "Sie ist kein Etwas, aber auch nicht ein Nichts!" (Phil. Untersuch. 304). Also see P. Klevius' analysis of a stone (in Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor, 1992).

Although Wittgenstein describes language as a tool it seems more appropriate to classify it as human behavior. Unlike tools language is a set (family) of a certain kind of bodily reactions (internal and/or towards its environment). We have to reject, not only the grammar which tries to force  itself on us", but also, and perhaps even more so, representations we, without any particular reason, assign to language.

Language is basically vocal but apart from that, little has been said about its real boundaries. One could actually argue that the best definition is perhaps the view that language is human territory. The question whether animals have a language is then consequently meaningless. On the other hand, Wittgenstein denied the existence of a "private language" because applying it could never prove the validity of its products. We are trapped in words and connotations of language although these categories themselves, like language in general, are completely arbitrary "language games," as Wittgenstein would have put it. (no offense, Mr Chomsky and others, but this is the tough reality for those trying to make sense of it in the efforts of constructing intelligent, talking computers). Furthermore, these categories change over time and within different contexts with overlapping borders.

Changing language games provide endless possibilities for creating new "language products", such as e.g. psycho-dynamic psychology. I believe this is exactly what Wittgenstein had in mind when he found Freud interesting as a player of such games but with nothing to say about the scientific roots of the mental phenomenon.

Let's imaging Donald Duck and a picture of a stone. Like many psychological terms, Donald Duck is very real in his symbolized form but nonetheless without any direct connection to the reality of the stone. In this sense, even the word stone has no connection to reality for those who don't speak English. Words and languages are shared experience.

It is said that a crucial feature of language is its ability to express past and future time. This might be true but in no way makes language solely human. When bees arrive to their hive they are able, in symbolic form, to express what they have seen in the past so that other bees will "understand" what to do in the future. Naming this an instinct just because bees have such an uncomplicated brain does not justify a different classification to that of human thinking.

If, as I proposed in Demand for Resources (1992), we stop dividing our interaction with the surrounding world in terms of observation and understanding (because there is no way of separating them), we will find it easier to compare different human societies. Language is a categorizing extension of perception/experience patterns and discriminates us as human only in the sense that we have different experiences.

Language has developed from a tool for communication to an additional tool of deception within itself. In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) I used the example of a stone that turned out to be papier mache, as well as the word existence which has transformed from emerge to exist, i.e. loosing its root and hence opening up for the question how we can exist.

However, words and language are just like everything else that hits our receptors. There is no principle difference in thinking through the use of words or through sounds, smells (albeit not through thalamus), pictures or other "categories". Ultimately, language is, like other types of communication with the surrounding world, just a form of adaptation to one's environment (in a broad sense of course), i.e. resistance against entropy.



Wikipedia: Language is a system that consists of the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so.
Human language has the properties of productivity and displacement, and relies entirely on social convention and learning. Its complex structure affords a much wider range of expressions than any known system of animal communication. Writing is a medium of human communication that represents language and emotion with signs and symbols.

This short "definition" reveals the meaninglessness of the definition.



It's important to note the difference between everyday use of language, and language used about itself.

What's the difference between an image of a distant galaxy taken via a space telescope, or smell molecules left on a path?

And long before humans realized how nature performs photosynthesis, they already thought of themselves as the masters of Universe.

And unlike what Chomsky and others say, Klevius doesn't think in language other than when preparing to answer someone through language. Is this why Klevius is a lousier talker than most early teenagers who don't have a clue about what Klevius is talking about?

Words constitute rigid traps when compared to free, smoothly running thinking/analysis - unless you're gambling with words, as Freud did while waiting for reality to catch up with his speculations we call psychoanalysis (see Klevius Psychosocial Freud timeline.

However, words are also so unprecise that they are useless for construction work etc. where we need math and geometry instead. Words describe what it is and math how it is.

Everyday language needs its greatest asset, volatility, which simultaneously constitutes its main security risk re. faking/misleading communication.

To define it more narrowly, language is also the room where psychoanalysis is supposed to live and work. A stone does not belong to language, but the word "stone" does. What is the difference? How does the word differ from the symbolic expression of a "real" stone in front of you? Or if we put it the other way round: What precisely makes it a stone? Nothing, except for the symbolic value derived from the word "stone." The term "observation" thus implicates an underlying "private language. When Turing mixed up his collapsing bridges with math, he was corrected by Wittgenstein, just as Freud was corrected when he tried to build psychological courses of events on a fantasy of natural science. Wittgenstein's "no" to Turing at the famous lecture at Cambridge hit home the difference between games and reality.

Archetypes and grammar as evolutionary tracks imprinted in our genes is a favorite theme among certain scholars. But what about other skills? Can there also be some hidden imprints that make driving or playing computer games possible? And what about ice hockey, football, chess, talk shows, chats and so on? The list can go on forever. Again, there is no distinguishing border between evolutionary "imprints" (i.e. adaptation) and other stimulus/response features in ordinary life.


"Primitive" vs. "Sophisticated" Thinking (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

The more synchronized (informed) something or someone is with its surrounding reality, the less dynamics/interest this something or someone invests in its relationship with that particular reality. Interest causes investment and social entropy excludes investment economy because economy is always at war against entropy. The key to economic success is luck and thus includes lack of knowledge. No matter how well a business idea is outlined and performed, the success or lack of success is ultimately unforeseeable.In Demand for Resources I discussed the possibility of some serious prejudice hidden in Karl Poppers' top achievement of civilization, namely the "World 3" and his and Eccles' assumption of an increasing level of sophistication from the primitive to the modern stage of development. It is of course easy to be impressed by the sophistication of the artificial, technical environment constructed by man, including language and literature, etc. But there is nonetheless a striking lack of evidence in support of a higher degree of complexity in the civilized human thinking than that of e.g. Australian Aboriginals, say 25,000 years ago. Needless to say, many hunting-gathering societies have been affluent in the way that they have food, shelter and enough time to enrich World 3, but in reality they have failed to do so.

Even on the level of physical anthropology, human evolution gives no good, single answer to our originality. What is "uniquely human" has rested on a "gap," which is now closed, according to Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, among others. This gap is presumably the same as the one between sensory input and behavioral output mentioned above.From an anthropological point of view, it can be said that a computer lacks genetic kinship, which, however, is a rule without exception in the animate world, although we in the West seem to have underestimated its real power.


De-constructing the Mind (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

A deconstruction of our underlying concepts of the brain can easily end up in serious troubles due to the problem with language manipulation. Wittgenstein would probably have suggested us to leave it as it is. If language is a way of manipulating a certain area - language - then the confusion will become even greater if we try to manipulate the manipulation! But why not try to find out how suitable "the inner environment" is for deconstruction? After all, this environment presupposes some kind of biology at least in the border line between the outside and the inside world. Are not behavioral reactions as well as intra-bodily causes, e g hormones etc. highly dependent on presumed biological "starting points"? How does skin color or sex hormones affect our thinking? Where do causes and reactions start and isn't even the question a kind of explanation and understanding?

Determinists usually do not recognize the point of free will although they admit the possible existence of freedom. Why? Obviously this needs some Wittgensteinian cleaning of language. Unfortunately I'm not prepared for the task, so let's pick up only the best looking parts, i.e. that words as freedom, will, mind, etc., are semantic inventions and that they have no connections to anything else if not proved by convincing and understandable evidence. Does this sound familiar and maybe even boring? Here comes the gap again. Stimuli and response seen purely as a reflex/adaptation is not always correct, says G. H. von Wright, because sometimes there may be a particular reason causing an action. According to von Wright, an acoustic sensation, for example, is mental and semantic and thus out of reach for the scientific understanding of the body-mind interaction. Is this a view of a diplomatic gentleman eating the cake and wanting to keep it too? To me, it is a deterministic indeterminist's view.

G. H. von Wright concludes that what we experience in our brain is the meaning of its behavioral effects. In making such a conclusion that it is rather a question of two different ways of narrowing one's view on living beings von Wright seems to narrow himself to Spinoza's view. Is meaning meaningful or is it perhaps only the interpreter's random projection of him/herself? Is it, in other words, based only on the existence of the word meaning?

Aristotle divided the world primarily into matter and definable reality (psyche). As many other Greek philosophers, Aristotle was an individualist and would have fitted quite well in the Western discourse of today. Berkeley, who was a full-blood determinist, however recognized the sameness in mind and matter and handed both over to "god". Consequently Philonous' perceived sensations in the mind were not directly aligned with Hylas view of immediate perceptions. We thus end up with Berkeley as a spiritual die-hard determinist challenging materialistic humanism.


Conclusion
                                                                            
In conclusion one might propose a rethinking of the conventional hierarchy of the brain. What we use to call "higher levels", perhaps because they are more pronounced in humans, are in fact only huge "neural mirrors" for the real genius, thalamus (and its capability of two-way communication with the cortex and extensions in the cerebellum, spine, nerv ends etc), i.e. what is part of the "primitive" system. In other words, one may propose a view describing the "gap" between humans and animals as a quantitative difference in the amount/power of cerebral "mirroring" and communication with thalamus, rather than as a distinct qualitative feature. Nothing, except our "emotions", seems to hinder us from making a "human machine". And because these very "emotions" are lived experience (there is, for example, no way to scientifically establish what could be considered "emotions" in a fetus) nothing, except the meaninglessness in the project itself, could hinder us from allowing a machine to "live" a "human life".

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Africa was unsuitable for human evolution, SE Asia was perfect - so why are some "researchers"* still babbling?!

Acknowledgment: Dear reader, as you're already more than accustomed with Klevius laziness, you're probably not surprised to hear that this posting was meant to be more thorough and elaborated but failed again. So have patience, any month now Klevius  patch it via proofreading and updates. So chew on this in the meantime and blame Klevius - others do. And as usual, Klevius doesn't take any responsibility - except for the intellectual content behind the rubbish, of course.

The genetic myth about "out of Africa" is entirely based on mongoloid San DNA (non ancient) whose physical appearance in fossil records in sub-Saharan Africa is very recent and differs from the oldest "modern" skull ever found in sub-Saharan Africa (36,000bp Hofmeyer). This means that the old part of San DNA came from somewhere else. Together with mongoloid features (cold adaptation) this clearly points to the north.

The ~260,000bp incipient "mongoloid" Jinniushan from northern China - a corner stone in Peter Klevius' published theory on human evolution since 1992.
Klevius question in his 1992 book (ISBN 9173288411) was twofold:

1 How come that there was a "mongoloid" big brained skull in northern China  two ice age cycles before present, yet nothing really happened before ~50,000bp?
2  How come that the oldest modern Africans are "mongoloids" - but much younger in Africa than the China fossils?

Since then it has emerged that Jinniushan was actually female, hence making her even more remarkable.








While continental Africa is and always has been an evolutionary dead end (no secure and longterm evolutionary hiding places), South East Asian archipelago has always constituted an evolutionary hotbed with its volatile island/mainland fluctuations.


Peter Klevius evolution tutorial - and the misleading term "anatomically modern humans" - and the silence about Denisovan's brain connection to truly modern humans.

Unlike most PC genetists/anthropologists today, Klevius shares with Svante Pääbo (is someone holding Svante back?) the view that what happened before the events represented by the findings in the Denisova cave, the pace of development among Homos were extremely slow. No matter how much Neanderthalphils and Afrocentrists try to induce "human like" meaning in more general Homo behavior. Neanderthals mixing and scrawling with ochre or using tree resins to affix stone points to wooden shafts doesn't prove anything re. their intelligence compared to the bracelet etc. in the Denisova cave, and how this new sophistication among modern humans then rapidly spread over Eurasia (compare the Lion Man 41,000bp in Europe and the Sulawesi rock painting 35,500bp). And burying the dead just tells about missing a loved one. And regular scratches on different materials have been around since at least half a Million years.



Klevius reminder to the reader: In Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) Klevius not only set the foundation of the so far best theory on consciousness and how the brain works, but also connected the big brained 280,000 bp Jinniushan in northern China with the mongoloid features of the oldest Africans - and asked: Why didn't Jinniushan people go to the Moon., after all, they had several iceages time to do so with a brain size exceeding modern humans. In 2004, after the discovery of Homo floresiensis  Klevius immediately told the world that here was the "missing brain link". Whe six years later Denisovan was found, Klevius theory was proven correct in everything except details.

John Hawks and many others seem to have combined their own ethnocentrism with Afrocentrism by 1) in a racist way "comforting" "Africans" that they are the "cradle" while simultaneously trying to lift up the "European" Neanderthal to be included in the "human family". Ironically, reality seems to prefer the very opposite.

The most important anthropological discovery ever, Homo floresiensis, doesn't fit in their view and is therefore either called "sick" or a "hobbit".

Chris Stringer in an interview 2018: "The heartland of Denisovan might have been in South East Asia." Peter Klevius (who was the first to say it publicly on the web 14 years before Stringer) agrees. However, there's much more to it. Denisovan 2 (two lineages discovered) was the one that had got a better packed brain through island dwarfing in SE Asia.

Primate evolution started and continued in SE Asia

 Klevius is of the strong opinion that the individual to the right on the pic below possesses a higher IQ, i.e. intelligence than the one to the left. And when it comes to intellect, the difference is even higher.
 Chris Stringer, who is a lovely lecturer who seriously tries to be scientific and PC at the same time, and therefore particularly dangerous for contaminating students with bias, is no stranger to fancy "theories". At one point he told the world (via fake news BBC, of course) that Neanderthals were less social than humans because they needed so much of their big brain for vision so that they lacked social skills. Peter Klevius answered (2013) this nonsense with the above pic (Tarsiers have smaller brains than their eyes - and they live in social groups as well as single) and reminded Stringer about the fact that there is no specific "visual brain area" which has been proven by studying individuals who were born blind and still had a functioning "visual brain area" now used for other tasks. Chris Stringer is also notorious for his lame excuses for having for so long clung to the most extreme out of Africa "theories". When will he again alter his Africa view - and preferably get it out of Africa?!


True scientist Peter Klevius has come out of Africa - when will Chris Stringer and other PC scientists come out of Africa?

Klevius respects Stringer, there are much worse out of Africa fanatics out there than him, but they aren't even worth mentioning. Chris ought to feel honored.

The Out of Africa mantra is a neo-colonialist insult against people living in Africa. A double one, considering the divisive effect it also has on "immigrants" to Africa.

Should they just be racially abused? PC people, in their blindness, are supporting divisive and racist movements in Africa. Many of these "immigrants" may even be seen as "Africans" because they look "negroid", and many non-"negroids" who have long roots in Africa may be seen as non-Africans.

There are no Africans, Asians, Europeans or Americans. We are all bastards. The reason why Klevius (since 1992) always has emphasized "mongoloids" is precisely to 1) underscore
that the least favoured "race" may be the main key to understanding modern humans, and to 2) undermine the racial bias against North and East Eurasians.

The fear of talking about intelligence but not about e.g. beauty etc., is an obstacle to science and scientists like Svante Pääbo and Peter Klevius, who both have no problem seeing the selfevident, namely that there must have been a huge jump in at least some humans intelligence based on what we now know from the Siberian Denisova cave.

Yes, there are more people with lower IQ in sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. So what?! There are also geniuses - and most people there are just average as everywhere else. Why would it be a problem that intelligence isn't exactly equally distributed? Underlying such an approach is pure racism against e.g. retarded (by birth or accident etc.) or less intelligent people.

Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia were dead ends when it came to human evolution. As was South America which only differed in that it didn't collect "evolutionary garbage" - there's little difference between e.g. Shompen in SE Asia and indigenous South Americans, but a huge genetic diversity in Africans and Australians.

Primate evolution has since its start come out from SE Asia. And the reason for this is the evolutionary volatile SE Asian archipelago. However, modern humans got their "mongoloid" features in the cold north (see Klevius theory below).


In all ends (except Australia) of the world natives look mongoloid.




The world during and after the dinosaurs

The modern human Homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) brain setup, according to Peter Klevius (2012), evolved in three main steps: 1. head shrinking without losing processing power, 2. filling up bigger skulls, 3. entering HSS.

100 Ma: The southern continent has just cracked up.

60 Ma six million years after the "big bang" in Yucatan killed most insects and therefore altered evolution for many species. After this period we see the emergence of Teilhardina.

Omomyid haplorhine Teilhardina is known on all three continents in association with the carbon isotope excursion marking the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55.5 Ma. Relative position within the carbon isotope excursion indicates that Asian Teilhardina asiatica is oldest, European Teilhardina belgica is younger, and North American Teilhardina brandti and Teilhardina americana are, successively, youngest. Analysis of morphological characteristics of all four species supports an S-E Asian origin and a westward Asia-to-Europe-to-North America dispersal. High-resolution isotope stratigraphy indicates that this dispersal happened in an interval of ≈25,000 yr. Rapid geographic dispersal and morphological character evolution in Teilhardina are consistent with rates observed in other contexts.

50 Ma

40 Ma:

10 Ma: Bipedal apes in Eurasia.

Sea-level changes can act as “species pumps” (compare what Klevius, back in 2003, wrote about how climate changes "pumped" genes through central Asian "arteries").


Sea-level changes during the Paleocene–Eocene and Plio–Pleistocene played a major role in generating biodiversity in SE Asia and contributed to recent divergence of many species. The timing of one early divergence between Indo-Burmese and Sundaic species coincides with late Paleocene and early Eocene high global sea levels, which induced the formation of inland seaways in the Thai-Malay Peninsula. Subsequent lowered sea levels may have provided a land bridge for its dispersal colonization across the Isthmus of Kra.




 Do consider that the Manot skull is very small (1,100cc) compared to the much older Liujiangs skull (1567cc) from Southeast China >68,000bp. Do also understand that early reports about "sapiens teeth and jaws" in Israel don't prove anything about the crania.

Here Manot is compared to a female from Europe 36,000bp.

These skulls were found in Northwestern Africa (300,000bp) and Southwestern Europe (430,000bp) respectively. However, the "African" skull is called modern human whereas the "European" skull is called Neandertal, despite the fact that neither has anything to do with truly modern humans.

Klevius theory on human evolution has tightly followed new findings without being locked to a doxic out-of-Africa mantra. That's why this image has come first for some six years on a Google search.


Peter Klevius 2012 human evolution map.


Whereas sub-Saharan Africa is an evolutionary dead end, Mediterranean and SE Asia constituted archepelagos with intermediate mainland connections - i.e. perfect evolutionary labs. Mediterranean may have played an important role in early hominid evolution (5.7 Ma footprints on Crete, 7.2 Ma Australopithecus at Rhine etc.), and SE Asia in the Floresiensis and Denisovan development. According to Peter Klevius (2004, 2008, 2010, 2012), a better packed brain evolved in island SE Asia isolation from where it later entered mainland Asia during lower sea level, and genetically spread to other Homos, e.g. the big skulled ones in Altai/Siberia.  

The fact that FOXP2-E distal is similar in humans and Denisovans, but differs in Neandertals is just one of a multitude of anomalies that neatly supports Peter Klevius theory, which is pretty much the very opposite to the mainstream out-of-Africa thought trap gospel.

Svant Pääbo shares Peter Klevius view that something particular must have happened with the human brain at that time. However, whereas Pääbo seems to think this happened similarily to al modern humans, Klevius thinks it was strongest in the region around the Denisova cave and then became diluted while modern humans spread towards more populated areas. As a consequence of this view the Denisovan's genius gene(s) had its strongest and longest concentration in the sparsely populated Siberia.


Out of Africa PC babblers' main argument, i.e. diversity, is actually the best evidence against them.

Why would the most adventurous hominids always stop evolving or just get extinct when they have come out of Africa?

Sub-Saharan Africa has been a cul-de-sac museum for archaic hominid genes - therefore diversity.

Just like modern humans could mix with Neandertals, equally they could mix with other archaic Homos that had been trapped in the sub-Saharan genetic appendice.

The very basis for what is called "the human lineage" is the result of tracing back in evolutionary time features that we ourselves possess - or lack. And the most general of these features is our "timid" physical appearance (no good teeth, no good runners, not especially strong etc.) combined with an ability to reach and live in all sub-Saharan African environments. A big but poorly equipped rat.

So how could such a creature possibly evolve undisturbed in an assumed isolated group? Moreover, if somehow possible, how then could such an evolved Homo get out from its alleged African evolutionary isolation without loosing its speciation through hybridization/gene flow with its surrounding relatives?

Only if the population was very big, or more importantly for this example, if it possessed some genetic advantage (e.g. intelligence), would it successfully survive hybridization. However, this should have happened before such intelligence appeared and this genetic clash would leave traces of increased genetic diversity due to mixing with archaic relatives surrounding the isolate population. But the problem is that no such isolation is to be found in the sub-Saharan cul-de-sac, whereas in SE Asia there were plenty of them - with gates that closed and opened perfectly for evolutionary purpose.

Genetic diversity increases when gene flow with other populations occur.


Geographic isolation leads to allopatric speciation through reproductive isolation.


Fruit fly larvae in isolation starts speciation because populations are prevented from gene flow via interbreeding.


Populations don't have to be geographically isolated from one another for speciation to occur. Speciation occurs when there is little or no inter-breeding (gene flow) between the two groups. Therefore we can say speciation is the result of reproductive isolation.



Klevius wrote:

Monday, March 6, 2017

~115,000 year old 1,800cc "mongoloid" skull from China fits perfectly in Peter Klevius theory on human evolution


~105,000- to 125,000-year-old archaic human crania from Xuchang, China shows incipient mongoloid and Neanderthal traits - may be Denisovans. 



Neanderthal male ~1600cc  (~50,000bp), Xuchang 1 male 1800cc (~115,000bp)  Jinniushan female ~1400cc (260,000bp).                   

Zhan-Yang Li et al.: Two early Late Pleistocene crania from Lingjing, Xuchang, China, exhibit a morphological mosaic with differences from and similarities to their western contemporaries. They share pan–Old World trends in encephalization and in supraorbital, neurocranial vault, and nuchal gracilization. They reflect eastern Eurasian ancestry in having low, sagittally flat, and inferiorly broad neurocrania. They share occipital (suprainiac and nuchal torus) and temporal labyrinthine (semicircular canal) morphology with the Neandertals. This morphological combination reflects Pleistocene human evolutionary patterns in general biology, as well as both regional continuity and interregional population dynamics.

The ~260,000bp incipient "mongoloid" Jinniushan from northern China - a corner stone in Peter Klevius' published theory on human evolution since 1992.

Klevius question in his 1992 book was twofold:

1 How come that there was a "mongoloid" big brained skull in northern China  two ice age cycles before present, yet nothing really happened before ~50,000bp?

2  How come that the oldest modern Africans are "mongoloids" - but much younger in Africa than the China fossils?

Add to this the remarkable Liujiang from China (see below).


Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However, Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although it's female.

In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

However, today, after the revelation of Homo floresiensis, there's a clear candidate to answering Klevius questions above: tropical island dwarfed brain, and its genetic spread up to the previously dumb but big skulled (to compensate for some of their dumbness) northerners. When these genes met the result was an explosion of intelligence in some of the northerners.

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 15, 2012 (with some random updates)

The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory


The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time. Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations" started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact! According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo erectus was most probably involved as well.

Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory

Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000 ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.



Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)


If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer 2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:



The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139 000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words, we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000 years after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of 70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.

Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains have been kept out of further research because of stupid* "Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more "special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of modern indigenous Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull Mungo man had a much smaller brain.

* There's no way anyone can state who was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no way of  making any meaningful connection to now living people.



Updated map


Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.


Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe bone belonging to different members of the same population have since been reported.

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013, mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain, which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.

Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans, since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone, two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone. The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female, indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced hybrids with Denisovans.

Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian Neanderthals".

Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans

Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa




In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.

In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.

So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search really paid off.

This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai. 

Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more than a decade.



Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, August 03, 2016


Peter Klevius 1992 (and developing* ahead of others) theory on human evolution - and guts with brains

* It follows science, not bias, and is powered with exceptional intelligence (what, a dirty word?) and therefore seems to be at the ultimate edge of our collected understanding (compare "the extremely normal") - yet the least commented despite millions of viewers. And the few comments are usually from tragic ignorants who don't even have the most basic understanding of the topic.

"Ornamented" bacteria colonies (copyright* Peter Klevius - but do feel free to cite)

 * Klevius texts are usually way ahead of the time they're written down, i.e. truly original. However, precisely because of this they rarely get the attention they deserve. Moreover, due to general time-bound alterations in the discourse at stake, not to mention particular alterations in attitudes and values, connotations may vary and make reading more difficult, especially if the text was progressive for its time. However, Klevius texts can usually be safely "time-translated" because central concepts are thoroughly presented at the time of writing (this is the delicate balancing act Klevius mentions in the foreword to his book, i.e. connecting associations between author and reader. This is also why Klevius loves to "brag" by challenging readers to find serious thoughts by Klevius anywhere else earlier than Klevius. A good example is EMAH - the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis on human cognition. An other is sex segregation and the social state, a third one being Klevius analysis of the so called Negative Human Rights from a sex neutral point of view, a fourth is Klevius classification of human societies not according to what they do but what they want (see e.g. chapter Khoe, San, and Bantu in Demand for Resources), a fifth being an analysis of Freud, his daughter, and Margaret Mahler, from a sex segregation and "motherhood guilt" perspective (see e.g. Pathological Symbiosis), and a sixth could be Klevius analysis of the social state (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist), and a seventh... There are also loads of other minor discoveries made by Klevius, such as, for example, the crucial connection between Freud's emerging psychoanalysis and Caton's much earlier discovery of electrical brain activity, and a PhD thesis on Heterosexual attraction and the failure of feminist theory (compare Klevius web museum from 2007, klevius.info, and Gametes have nos sexes), etc. etc.,

All organisms, including us, are differently equipped bacteria colonies. The first such bacteria colonies probably evolved from bacteria "mats" that rolled into a membrane through which they could communicate nutrition/metabolism. This evolutionary step resembles Klevius view on how RNA much earlier cloaked itself in a protein capsid. Viruses may have evolved from self-replicating molecules that later on created the cells which conventionally have been seen as predecessors for virus. Klevius first got the idea as a late teenager when he first heard about prions, i.e. self-convoluting proteins. He wondered whether it could be possible that prions at some point wrapped around loose RNA, hence creating the first viruses. "Pre-life" amino acids capable of forming foldable proteins would have made this possible. RNA would hence constitute a proto-DNA.

When colonies of one-cell organisms got an outer membrane that could communicate food supply and disposal (incl. disposal of parts of itself) the next step was to create independent movement etc. This last stage led to a diversity of different solutions and approaches depending on environmental circumstances.

So in short, we are walking and thinking slaves of our guts. And the brain and its intelligence that we are so proud of (as long as it's not Klevius brain, of course) is created for the purpose of feeding our guts. When it produces tech, innovations, art etc., this is just a byproduct of its main duty to serve the gut bacterias.

Existencecentrism in an endless unimaginable Universe where the very question "why are we here?" resides (with all its connotations etc) inside existencecentrism, hence outside the very realm that it's supposed to address.


In Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411) - where Klevius called this realm the unreachable - he sketched evolution and our position with a tool called 'existencecentrism', i.e. a fundamental bias that we can change but never get rid of. Klevius thought this axiomatic statement could stand as a basis for hunting down lower level bias in science. This approach was well received 1980 by George Henrik von Wright (the Finland-Swedish philosopher who succeeded Ludvig Wittgenstein at Cambridge) and was first published in the Finland-Swedish Hufvudstadsbladet 1981. Payment was Fmk 500.00 (so quite a distance from e.g. Hillary Clinton who gets enormous sums for opening her mouth in accordance to her muslim sharia masters).

According to Klevius (1981, 1992) the basic element in our understanding of Universe is motion that causes evolution and devolution in a causal stream of changing complexities.  This understanding, however, also locks itself on our metaphysical explorations.

Although Einstein taught us about the 4-dimensional space-time continuum relativity, few seem to have understood that this means that the farther we look the less we see. Combine this with the crazy "monotheist" idea of "creation from nothing" by a "god", and the confusion is total. Ever considered if this cultural limitation is the clue to why e.g. East-Asian Atheists score better IQ! "The one Universe" in the middle of the pic below is just a part of universe.

No wonder the "big bang" concept was invented by a cleric.


Klevius wrote:

Monday, January 9, 2012


The ridiculous idea about "one god" hampers CERN/LHC


Universe doesn't have limits - nor is it endless


In my book Demand for Resources (Resursbegär1992:21-22) I pointed out not only the dangers of such a senseless "model" as "Big Bang" but also how this "model" is trapped in a "monotheistic" view demanding "creation", i.e. a "starting point". Not only is such a "starting point" conceptually impossible (apart from its very obvious other limitations, e.g. how do you "bang" in "nothing") but it also fatally misdirects research focus because it assumes "a universe" or "the universe" where there's only universe.

A time trip back towards the "Big Bang" would only reveal a continuing growth of neighboring "universes". The space/time continuum and warping would make the "Big Bang" model laughable.

To my surprise I've noticed how many decently minded people seem to have great difficulties understanding how the great distances and the great limitations caused by the speed of light constant, warps every effort to take even quite small thought steps, say for example only within our own tiny galaxy. 



Cameras never lie - pictures do!

All space cameras, from our own eyes to the Hubble space telescope and its follow-ups, have in common that they don't take pictures of space but of themselves, i.e. photo reactions on the retina, CCD etc. These reactions are then interpreted by our knowledge. However, to describe such reactions as a picture of space is extremely misleading.

Kleius wrote:

Friday, April 5, 2013


Where's the star and where were you?


The illusion of a Universe


A ten billion year old supernova has been discovered. It means it died ten billion years ago, i.e. 5.5 billion years before our Sun was born.



The black area on the pic above corresponds to the white area on Klevius' Origin of Universe pic.




The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years from the Earth. Light travels at a speed corresponding to 7.5 laps around the Earth in one second.

The light from the farthest objects detectable by Hubble and other cameras (incl. radio waves etc), i.e. more than 13 billion years ago, marks the end of our capabilities, not the end of Universe. Because there is no "end" or "beginning". These terms are oxymorons and semantically absurd.

So next time you take a look at the stars do consider what you don't see.



Klevius wrote:

Thursday, March 15, 2012 (with some random updates)

The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory



The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time. Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations" started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact! According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo erectus was most probably involved as well.

Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory

Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000 ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.



Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)


If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer 2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:



The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139 000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words, we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000 years after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of 70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.

Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains have been kept out of further research because of stupid* "Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more "special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of modern indigenous Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull Mungo man had a much smaller brain.

* There's no way anyone can state who was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no way of  making any meaningful connection to now living people.





In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Updated map


Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.


Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe bone belonging to different members of the same population have since been reported.

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013, mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain, which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.

Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans, since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone, two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone. The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female, indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced hybrids with Denisovans.

Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian Neanderthals".

Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans

Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa




In Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:

In northern China near North Korean border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000 years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume (1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior (Klevius 1992:28).

Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.

Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.

In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.

So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search really paid off.

This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai. 

Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more than a decade.



Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However, Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although it's female.

Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004 and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu, 1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a, 1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H. erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe. Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html). However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next decade, or so.

Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!


For a background to Klevius' theory see previous postings and Out of Africa as Ape/Homo hybrids and back as global Mongooids 


First and third from the left are Red Deer Cave people 14,300-11,500 years ago. Second and fourth the so called Venus from Brassempouy in France 25-26,000 years ago. The last pic is a reconstruction of a 1.9 Million year old Homo rudolfiensis skull. They all had flat broad cheeks, no chin and rounded forehead.

From the left: Red Deer Cave, Sami, Cro-Magnon


Was the sculptural portrait of Venus of Brassempouy made because she looked so different from Cro Magnon? Was she kept as a pet or something by her Cro Magnon captors?

There were certainly completely different looking modern humans living in Eurasia side by side some 26,000 years ago. And the only way to make sense of these enormous differences is Klevius hybridization theory, i.e. that the modern brain came from small ape-like creatures (compare the "scientists" who didn't believe that the small Homo floresiensis brain could be capable of tool-making, fire-making etc..

Debbie Martyr (an Orang Pendek* researcher): "the mouth is small and neat, the eyes are set wide apart and the nose is distinctly humanoid"
* Orange Pendek is the most common name given to a small but broad shouldered cryptid ceature that reportedly inhabits remote, mountainous forests on Sumatra.

Venus of Brassempouy, one of the world's oldest real portrait
(this one slightly retouched by Klevius)

The Red Deer Cave people, discovered in southern China and who lived some 14,300-11,500 years ago  had long, broad and tall frontal lobes behind the forehead, which are associated with personality and behavior.  However, they also express prominent brow ridges, thick skull bones, flat upper face with a broad nose, jutting jaws and lack a humanlike chin. Their brains were smaller than modern humans and they had large molar teeth (just like Denisovan), and short parietal lobes at the top of the head (associated with sensory data). According to Curnoe, "These are primitive features seen in our ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago".
Unique features of the Red Deer Cave people include a strongly curved forehead bone, broad nose and broad eye sockets, flat and wide cheeks and wide and deep lower jaw joint to the skull base.
Klevius comment: Compare this description to Venus of Brassempouy on the pic, one of the world’s oldest portrait/sculpture of a human made some 25-26,000 years ago in what is now France.

This Cro Magnon could have been the captor of Venus of Brassempouy. Compare e.g. his protruding chin with the retracting one on Venus of Brassempouy. And keep in mind that the human chin has been an elusive and quite recent feature in human evolution. The delicate features we used to attribute to anatomically modern human while simultaneously attributing high intelligence may, in fact, not be connected at all. Slender and delicate skeletal features are not always connected with high cultural achievement. Quite the opposite when looking at skeletal remains outside the Aurignacian area..





In Dolní Věstonice, Eastern Europe a portrait of an almost modern Cro Magnon is now scientifically dated to at least 26,000 BP (overvhelming dating analysis and similar sophistication as an other similar head from the same time and place, yet people like Don Hichock think it's a 20th century joke against Slavs). The performance of its creator is on an extremely high cultural level when considering it predates Mideastern civilizations with some23,000 years, and that it evolved in a cultural tradition that has never been found in Africa or Mideast.

Klevius comment: Consider the circumstances. Small population and, at some stage, no previous "teachers". This northern part of the Aurignacian struck almost out of the blue unles you also consider the Denisova bracelet.


















This extremely complicated to manufacture stone bracelet was made by the ape-like "non-human(?) Denisovan hybrid in Siberia >40,000 years ago by utilizing a drilling technology, comparable to modern machines, according to the researchers who found it.














Professor Ji Xueping ( Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology): “Because of the geographical diversity caused by the Qinghai-Tibet plateau, south-west China is well known as a biodiversity hotspot and for its great cultural diversity”.
Klevius comment: Compare what was said already 2004 (before the presentation of Homo floresiensis) on the web(and 1992 in book form): Genes were "pumped" back and forth through mostly the same (Central-Asian) geographical "veins" by frequent climate changes, hence prohibiting speciation but encouraging local "raciation".

According to Klevius' theory we got our modern brain intelligence from hybridization with apes (Pan?). These creatures were small and apelike although bipedal.  When they moved north they encountered cold adapted Homos with large skulls. This combination created the most intelligent people ever on the planet. However, when this extremely small population began expanding it dissolved with the big headed but stupid Homos hence empowering their intelligence while diluting its own. The mix became today's humans.

Homo floresiensis on Java (i.e. north of the Wallace line as opposed to thise found on Flores) may be, and the Denisovans in Siberia are variants on this hybrid path.





"Racial" distribution in accordance with Klevius' "Out of Siberia and back to Africa" theory (aka "Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids"

Mongoloids and Australoids are the races most distant from each other because whereas Africa had a strong back migration of mongoloids Australia due to its location came to be less involved. This is also why the so called Caucasoid race (in a broad sense) came to populate what in Klevius terminology is called the "bastard belt" (the grey area on the map).





The senseless Mideastern "creation out of nothing" ideology got popular only because it boosted patriarchal sex apartheid (Adam created by "god" and woman created from Adam).

The incredibly stupid (see postings below) "Out of Africa" term only competes with the equally misleading and stupid "Big Bang" term - see Klevius new blog on the Origin of Universe (note that there's no 'the' in front of universe).






M130
Genetic traces of Denisovan

Klevius' human evolution formula from hot to cold


Chimp/Homo hybridization  (FOXP2 variant) + meeting/mixing with Eurasian Homos = Denisovan (Floresiensis?) and leaves an early but misleading genetic Africa label due to the back and forth movement between Eurasia and Africa.

Denisovan (Floresiensis?) gets a better packed brain in island Indonesia through sea level isolation. Later on the opposite effect releases some of them into Asian mainland.

In summary, the oldest African genes are not human, and the later ones are just the result of mixing from back migration.

When Klevius in the 1980s got in contact with African aborigines he immediately was struck by their mongoloid appearance. Why on earth would African aborigines have traces of cold adaptation? Today we have the answer in Siberia.





 .