Kindness and truthfulness are the universal egregores. These are the foundational principles of Naturopathic and other holistic forms of medicine. "Dis-ease" is a wise , innate response of the organism to violation of these natural/universal egregores. Healing is the unfailing result of applying these universal egregores first and foremost to our behaviors, individually and collectively to our behaviors of eating, moving and resting, thinking, and relating. Healing begins with the radical transformation of our very attitude that illness is our enemy to an attitude of non-violence. "First, do no harm." The practical application of this principle to the care of fever, inflammation, respiratory, and circulatory problems transforms our care of illness and must be experienced to be appreciated.
Maybe Paxlovid instead? I get the "identify doctor which won't treat treating you as a moral hazard" idea, but if someone is still going on about ivermectin, they're engaging in some nonsense culture war battles, above truth-seeking.
"The signal that binds them into super-organismic behavior for the prior ten thousand years has been the use of money."
I'd love to see an expansion of your ant model to include other pheromones. For example, social emotions like shame or ambition or competitiveness or fame seeking. Or even, actually sexual pheromones. All these can be argued to contribute as much as money to super-organismic behavior, at least from time to time.
"Kurzweil Singularity of a different form, a man-machine hybrid thinking object that lives in the virtual, and battles with other man-machine hybrid thinking objects for purchase in the overall landscape of human brain space. These are the egregores, and they control the behavior of most people who are plugged into the feed. And each information silo echo chamber is fertile ground for the formation of an egregore." Similar to the plot of SSSS.Gridman - a friend pointed this out it seems legit
I work on a project called The Canonical Debate, and it seems to me to be a possible counter to the evolution of egregores. If they are doing the thinking (and the talking) for doctors (and everyone else, of course), they are only able to do that within the spaces left between facts. That is, they are an accumulation of beliefs where there are no facts, or where facts leave space for interpretation. Is Ivermectin effective? We don't know. If we did, it wouldn't serve as the litmus test you proposed. The more facts we can verify, the less room there is for egregores to do the thinking for us. There is also less room for egregores within our ignorance for those things we can openly research. While you are effectively sensemaking, or, better, while you are performing actual experimentation to understand a phenomenon, your mind is open, and therefore relatively free from egregore influence. Mankind also suffers from inefficiency of information transfer (no one person has all the facts), which also creates space for egregores to do the thinking. The Canonical Debate proposes to improve our capacity to accumulate and share knowledge. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how it might change social communication (in the realm of debate), and how that would effect the evolution and influence of egregores. (look for "Canonical Debate Lab")
Thank you for your clear thinking.
Kindness and truthfulness are the universal egregores. These are the foundational principles of Naturopathic and other holistic forms of medicine. "Dis-ease" is a wise , innate response of the organism to violation of these natural/universal egregores. Healing is the unfailing result of applying these universal egregores first and foremost to our behaviors, individually and collectively to our behaviors of eating, moving and resting, thinking, and relating. Healing begins with the radical transformation of our very attitude that illness is our enemy to an attitude of non-violence. "First, do no harm." The practical application of this principle to the care of fever, inflammation, respiratory, and circulatory problems transforms our care of illness and must be experienced to be appreciated.
"Ask them their opinions of ivermectin"
Maybe Paxlovid instead? I get the "identify doctor which won't treat treating you as a moral hazard" idea, but if someone is still going on about ivermectin, they're engaging in some nonsense culture war battles, above truth-seeking.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted
"The signal that binds them into super-organismic behavior for the prior ten thousand years has been the use of money."
I'd love to see an expansion of your ant model to include other pheromones. For example, social emotions like shame or ambition or competitiveness or fame seeking. Or even, actually sexual pheromones. All these can be argued to contribute as much as money to super-organismic behavior, at least from time to time.
"They believe they have seen these treatment options work, in their experience, and have variously used hydroxyquinoline, ivermectin,"
The word "believe" is very powerful. Perhaps Ivermectin is worth considering for nothing more than a placebo effect, given its risk profile?
Random aside:
"Kurzweil Singularity of a different form, a man-machine hybrid thinking object that lives in the virtual, and battles with other man-machine hybrid thinking objects for purchase in the overall landscape of human brain space. These are the egregores, and they control the behavior of most people who are plugged into the feed. And each information silo echo chamber is fertile ground for the formation of an egregore." Similar to the plot of SSSS.Gridman - a friend pointed this out it seems legit
I work on a project called The Canonical Debate, and it seems to me to be a possible counter to the evolution of egregores. If they are doing the thinking (and the talking) for doctors (and everyone else, of course), they are only able to do that within the spaces left between facts. That is, they are an accumulation of beliefs where there are no facts, or where facts leave space for interpretation. Is Ivermectin effective? We don't know. If we did, it wouldn't serve as the litmus test you proposed. The more facts we can verify, the less room there is for egregores to do the thinking for us. There is also less room for egregores within our ignorance for those things we can openly research. While you are effectively sensemaking, or, better, while you are performing actual experimentation to understand a phenomenon, your mind is open, and therefore relatively free from egregore influence. Mankind also suffers from inefficiency of information transfer (no one person has all the facts), which also creates space for egregores to do the thinking. The Canonical Debate proposes to improve our capacity to accumulate and share knowledge. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how it might change social communication (in the realm of debate), and how that would effect the evolution and influence of egregores. (look for "Canonical Debate Lab")