Toxic

The Zombie conspiracy is detailed in contingency plan MJ-1949-04P / 78 SOM1-01.[1] Since 2011, the CDC, based in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, surveyed readers to determine if they actually followed their tips and recommendations for preparedness of natural disasters, zombie infestation and other emergency situations.[2]

Conspiracy[edit | edit source]

On 16 May 2011, Rear Admiral Ali S. Khan, MD,[3] who heads the CDC's Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, wrote: "The rise of zombies in pop culture has given credence to the idea that a zombie apocalypse could happen. In such a scenario zombies would take over entire countries...[2] Plan where you would go and multiple routes you would take ahead of time...[4] You may laugh now, but when it happens you'll be happy you read this.[5]

Then in 2012, leaked video footage showed 31 year old Rudy Eugene attacking 65 year old Ronald Edward Poppo, gouging out his eyes. Eugene strangled Poppo into unconsciousness, then began to bite into Poppo's face. A police officer arrived on the scene captured on a nearby security cam. The officer shouted at Eugene telling him to stop. Eugene growled at the officer but then continued to bite into Poppo. The officer shot Eugene four more times until he was mortally wounded. 

The autopsy report declared that "marijuana" was in Rudy Eugene's bloodstream. The mass media speculated that he might have been on bath salts. But neither marijuana nor bath salts contribute to psychotic episodes. The declaration of marijuana in the autopsy report simply means Bureau investigation.

In 2010, the University of California made the following statement regarding the realist strategy of extinction:[6]

"Consider evolutionary games in which naive realist and critical realist strategies compete, and find that critical realist strategies can drive naive realist strategies to extinction. The whole truth is not always more fit than partial truth.
"We then consider games in which interface strategies are added to the competition, and find that interface strategies can drive critical realist and naive realist strategies to extinction.
"The truth, in whole or in part, is not always more fit than perceptions that see no truth at all."[6]

A critical realist can perceive that it is pointless to classify materiel when attributes are lacking, specifically regarding the categorization of infectious agents. You cannot place the agent in question into a meaningful category, until you can measure its attributes objectively without preconceived classification. The realist strategy of extinction predicts that when an infectious agent reaches singularity, it may destroy itself.

A singularity is a point in time at which technological or biomechanical growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.[7][8]

Rationalization[edit | edit source]

The claim that brains evolved to rationalize decisions make no sense as rationalization of an already fixed decision would only waste energy by adding more brain processes that do not contribute to the decisions. Nor do the concepts of "hot and cold cognition" make any evolutionary sense as an ability to change one's mind rationally when it did not matter that was decreased the more it mattered would become useless when it was needed the most, i.e. in matters of life and death which are exactly the cases in which expensive brains capable of scientific thinking can be worth their energy costs by increasing the chances of survival. Adding another mechanism that curtailed ability to listen to the conclusions when they reached "hot" topics would not save any of the energy since the processing that led to the conclusions had already been made. It would only increase the costs even more (only to destroy the benefits) by adding another step of processing. Since it would increase both the actual amount of processing and the number of brain mechanisms, the waste of energy would be there regardless of whether it is information processing or maintenance of brain tissues that consume the most energy, or any percentages of costs between them.

So according to this theory, the individuals (i.e. zombies) that assume that "rationalization obviously exists" or that "people obviously want to be right" should be the same individuals that assume that attributes "must" be compared to a "population average". And that the underlying cause of all those assumptions should be the same general imprecision of the brain caused by fewer pathways in the brain.

However, just as robots that do not understand what is being said can be programmed to have what sounds like intelligent conversations in staged contexts, but can be exposed by members of the audience asking non-staged questions, it is possible that zombies can be educated to list a number of "acceptable reasons" in a parrot-like manner without understanding them. Since that would be a word sequence imitation not backed by any actual understanding of the content, the theory predicts that individuals that assume that there must "obviously" be a rationalization when a list explained on the lines of "because an education says so" is exhausted should misunderstand the same content for a mere reformulation of insignificant details in the word facade and not understand that the content is the same.

If the individual, for example, shifts between agreeing or disagreeing with the theory that labelling individuals as racists and ostracizing them helps racist organizations gain members by the ostracized having nowhere else to go depending on word formulation that the individual claim to be "self-pity" in the ostracized in some word formulations and not others, the individual have failed to understand the content and displayed a parroting of word facades consistent with lacking the brain capacity required to understand the content, i.e. being a zombie. However, if an individual that assumes "rationalization" after exhausting a list of "because an education says so" reasons do distinguish the content regardless of word facade, that falsifies this zombie theory provided that the questions are made impromptu. The theory also predicts that the zombies by this test (assumers of "rationalization") should have generally less discriminating conditioned reflexes than non-zombies (with a general ability to understand that there is never an "obvious rationalization" by default of a list of "reasons").

Another prediction is that zombies reviewing each other would decrease their number of alleged reasons other than "rationalization" over time by "copy of a copy" effects.

The theory also predicts that there should be no individuals that only assume that rationalization "must" exist when they are angry or upset and never in other contexts. Simple observation of individuals making assumptions of "rationalization" while being angry or upset would not falsify the theory, since it does not imply that the anger or upsetness is the cause of the assumption. And since the individual need not remember all instances of assuming "rationalization", the theory would not be falsified by someone simply only remembering to have thought that rationalization was obvious when being angry or upset. However, if an individual followed over time recurringly made assumptions of "rationalization" when angry or upset but never made such an assumption when not angry or upset, that would falsify this zombie theory. Falsifiable prediction made.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. MAJ SOM1-01, p.10
  2. 2.0 2.1 The Atlantic, Why Did the CDC Develop a Plan for a Zombie Apocalypse?, by Chris Good, 20 May 2011
  3. CDC, Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse, by Ali S. Khan, May 16, 2011
  4. Daniel Indiviglio (May 20, 2011). "[ Apocalyptic Economics: Whether Zombies or Rapture, Be Prepared]". The Atlantic.
  5. Wikipedia, Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse
  6. 6.0 6.1 Justin T. Mark , Brian B. Marion, Donald D. Hoffman. Journal of Theoretical Biology, Natural selection and veridical perceptions. University of California (2010)
  7. Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). "Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited.
  8. Eden, Amnon H.; Moor, James H. (2012). Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 1–2. ISBN 9783642325601.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.