I have a few essays in draft that revolve around one concept: would the leaders or luminaries of the past have been successful in today's social ecosphere? Was it easier to be a paradigm-breaker when you had less social feedback? Did ideas benefit from a longer isolation period when the world was less connected?
I am glad you are here on substack, and I'm intrigued by the questions you are raising the the nature of your research.
Paradigm shifts almost always emerge from the margins, from the edges, from what is often dismissed as “fringe” science. As Max Planck famously observed: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up familiar with it.”
The status quo resists change, even within science itself. The very institutions that should embrace new evidence when it emerges are often the ones that push back against it, clinging to established paradigms and defending their prevailing dogmas.
Awesome. I am, assuming that you are familiar with Fleck and Kuhn (?), who we generally reference when discussing the chokehold on innovation that thought collectives have.
But really, it was Bob Becker who spelled it out plainly in *the body electric*, when he said that science is bought and paid for by the military industrial information complex. An piece of information itself, that has been countlessly corroborated. So, it is, perhaps even part of "narrative control", to deny this aspect and to say that it is social consensus that dictates thought collectives.
So, great to hear you thinking about bigger pictures, but the findings are curiously lacking the most critical factor. You mentioned Margulis... Did you know that Lovelock was secretly working for M16? Which is just one small example of the level of coercion that we are dealing with here.
Cross discipline, as in, working with people from well outside of the academy is the only way that science can ever become trustworthy in the face of this issue. Thank you.
A Biophysical Hypothesis on Hair Loss: The Ultimate "Blown Fuse"?
If we apply the Energy Resistance (eR) framework to hair pigmentation, how should we understand hair loss (alopecia)?
Could greying and hair loss be the same defense mechanism against systemic energy overload, just at different levels of severity?
Level 1 (Greying): Disconnecting the "power cord" (stopping melanin production) to halt excess energy influx, while leaving the tower intact.
Level 2 (Hair Loss): Tearing down the entire "antenna tower" (the follicle) when internal heat and resistance become completely unmanageable.
From a biophysical and system-engineering perspective, this suggests three drivers for hair loss:
1. Thermal Venting (Protecting the Brain): The brain is highly vulnerable to heat. When high eR converts trapped energy into massive entropy, shedding the highly-melanized hair turns the scalp into a "heat sink" to vent thermal stress to the environment.
2. Bioelectric Collapse: Maintaining the hair's morphogenetic field requires immense energy and voltage. If mitochondrial dysfunction drops the cellular capacitance (via lack of metabolic water), the electric "scaffolding" collapses, taking the physical structure down with it.
3. Grid Disconnection: A modern lack of UV-A reduces Nitric Oxide (NO) generation, constricting the capillary network and cutting off the electron/blood supply to these energy-expensive peripheral antennas.
Rather than viewing hair loss merely as a local hormonal (DHT) or genetic flaw, could it be the body pulling the plug on peripheral high-energy nodes to protect the mainframe (the brain) from thermal and energetic fry-out? I would love to know if this interpretation aligns with your eR principle.
Nirosha, great article describing how science is more often than not a collective activity. Individuals who cause paradigm shifts are few and far in between the majority of scientists, who in my opinion, stick to safe science.
Coherence across fundamental forces in the universe appears more and more so, to be the goal of an organism and every thing in the universe to maintain.
★ How would you describe what coherence is?
The trick in today's age, still is largely centered around predictable, incremental science no matter what some institutions talk about pursuing frontier knowledge.
★ How can we change the incentives structure to make frontier science less risky for funders and incentivise more collectives like Northwell to be born?
For the way Pensive solves this AI problem through our cognitive architecture. We use empathy energy minimization as a fundamental substrate of our computation.
I have a few essays in draft that revolve around one concept: would the leaders or luminaries of the past have been successful in today's social ecosphere? Was it easier to be a paradigm-breaker when you had less social feedback? Did ideas benefit from a longer isolation period when the world was less connected?
I am glad you are here on substack, and I'm intrigued by the questions you are raising the the nature of your research.
Paradigm shifts almost always emerge from the margins, from the edges, from what is often dismissed as “fringe” science. As Max Planck famously observed: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up familiar with it.”
The status quo resists change, even within science itself. The very institutions that should embrace new evidence when it emerges are often the ones that push back against it, clinging to established paradigms and defending their prevailing dogmas.
Really looking forward to seeing where the bleeding edge takes us.
Alfred Wegener's theory of plate tectonics was dismissed by geologist when he first presented it in 1911 (or 1912). Today, nobody doubts about it.
Awesome. I am, assuming that you are familiar with Fleck and Kuhn (?), who we generally reference when discussing the chokehold on innovation that thought collectives have.
But really, it was Bob Becker who spelled it out plainly in *the body electric*, when he said that science is bought and paid for by the military industrial information complex. An piece of information itself, that has been countlessly corroborated. So, it is, perhaps even part of "narrative control", to deny this aspect and to say that it is social consensus that dictates thought collectives.
So, great to hear you thinking about bigger pictures, but the findings are curiously lacking the most critical factor. You mentioned Margulis... Did you know that Lovelock was secretly working for M16? Which is just one small example of the level of coercion that we are dealing with here.
Cross discipline, as in, working with people from well outside of the academy is the only way that science can ever become trustworthy in the face of this issue. Thank you.
I’m sure AI will consider your views and cherish them
A Biophysical Hypothesis on Hair Loss: The Ultimate "Blown Fuse"?
If we apply the Energy Resistance (eR) framework to hair pigmentation, how should we understand hair loss (alopecia)?
Could greying and hair loss be the same defense mechanism against systemic energy overload, just at different levels of severity?
Level 1 (Greying): Disconnecting the "power cord" (stopping melanin production) to halt excess energy influx, while leaving the tower intact.
Level 2 (Hair Loss): Tearing down the entire "antenna tower" (the follicle) when internal heat and resistance become completely unmanageable.
From a biophysical and system-engineering perspective, this suggests three drivers for hair loss:
1. Thermal Venting (Protecting the Brain): The brain is highly vulnerable to heat. When high eR converts trapped energy into massive entropy, shedding the highly-melanized hair turns the scalp into a "heat sink" to vent thermal stress to the environment.
2. Bioelectric Collapse: Maintaining the hair's morphogenetic field requires immense energy and voltage. If mitochondrial dysfunction drops the cellular capacitance (via lack of metabolic water), the electric "scaffolding" collapses, taking the physical structure down with it.
3. Grid Disconnection: A modern lack of UV-A reduces Nitric Oxide (NO) generation, constricting the capillary network and cutting off the electron/blood supply to these energy-expensive peripheral antennas.
Rather than viewing hair loss merely as a local hormonal (DHT) or genetic flaw, could it be the body pulling the plug on peripheral high-energy nodes to protect the mainframe (the brain) from thermal and energetic fry-out? I would love to know if this interpretation aligns with your eR principle.
Nirosha, great article describing how science is more often than not a collective activity. Individuals who cause paradigm shifts are few and far in between the majority of scientists, who in my opinion, stick to safe science.
Coherence across fundamental forces in the universe appears more and more so, to be the goal of an organism and every thing in the universe to maintain.
★ How would you describe what coherence is?
The trick in today's age, still is largely centered around predictable, incremental science no matter what some institutions talk about pursuing frontier knowledge.
★ How can we change the incentives structure to make frontier science less risky for funders and incentivise more collectives like Northwell to be born?
For the way Pensive solves this AI problem through our cognitive architecture. We use empathy energy minimization as a fundamental substrate of our computation.