I still stand by my claim that the most common cause of death is chronic iron poisoning, and living past 100 was a regular occurence in the bronze age.
The best explanation again seems that all the modern nutrition is nonsense fed by some double agent to the allies in WW2, (iron, and the toxicity of heavy metals) based supposedly on some secret concentration camp experiments, and nobody is allowed to question it in order to "not let their sacrifice go in vain" or some such bullshit.
That's what I thought too, but the difference is big. You'd think you maybe lose some color lights, or very bright flowers, but no, colors outside sRGB are common.
There was nothing you could do about the TV, the screen couldn't show all the colors that you needed.
Let's add an example to illustrate the difference:
Let's say that there is a correlation between the number of flights between London and New York, and the prices of sulfur. The correlation is near perfect.
When your neocortex is working, you ignore it. You can't create any plausible scenario how this could work (it doesn't exist within your latent space) so you don't learn anything from it, it doesn't even register in your brain as anything worthy of notice.
But everybody with the cerebellum only absolutely does learn it. And completely for real, not just as some fun factoid, but as a fact that they know the same way you know that airplanes have wings, and everybody knows it, only you don't.
Then, one day out of nowhere people start buying sulfur. Your questions are met with laughter and mockery "dude, everybody's buying sulfur, are you autistic?". And you don't know, because you haven't even learned the pseudo facts that everybody else bases their reasoning on.
This is only a made up example, but this is exactly how it works.
How about the delayed electrification in Britain? It seems that elswhere it began in the late 1870s, but there was no major electrification in Britain before the 20th century. I thought maybe it was also because of some patent obstruction?
I've been posting it repeatedly, but my posts are getting downvoted, and flagged (hidden).
It apears it only goes to back to the 19th century, and may be connected with the case of Phineas Gage, who miraculously survived massive brain damage.
Basically, it seems that we are ruled by a crazy cult.
What I claim is, that the cerebellum is a statistical machine, which is fundamentally limited by the fact that it gets overwhelmed by spurious correlations once it gets too powerful, and it begins to hallucinate.
Mammals evolved the neocoretex, a data reduction machine, which resolves this problem by reducing a large amount of inputs into a much smaller number of values that carry all the information. When the cerebellum acts only in this latent space, and is thus restricted by what can be represented within this latent space, it can be powerful, and avoid hallucination.
The more "counterintuitive" situations the creature has to deal with, the bigger neocortex/cerebellum ratio it needs to avoid hallucinating.
Thus when a person's neocortex gets damaged, they become what may seem like super smart, they make insane conclusions and appear to be able to understand anything, but none of it is actually real, and they are just insane.
What they seem to believe (which is not shared publicly, because it would get "misinterpreted, but allows to be acknowledged internally) is that as animals got too intelligent they failed to breed, but intelligence is still good for not dying. And the neocortex evolved to keep us dumb so that we could breed, and only lift its veil in times of dire need, so that we could use our intelligence to survive. And so, they concluded that they can create a supersmart race by destroying our neocortexes with various means, so that we can be smart all the time, not only in emergencies, and gigantic progress would result.
You need to understand that the power structure of the western society critically depends on the myth of the recent cognitive shift. Where people were little more than animals, until several thousand years ago, when modern thinking suddenly somehow emerged, and those chosen few worked tirelesly for the thousands of years to civilize everybody else.
There is no such a thing as the Overton window. It's a made up term created by insane people who can't perceive reality, and don't understand that valid opinions are restricted by it. So they didn't understand why some ideas were accepted, while other opinions got rejected, and thought that it must be some kind of social consensus, that could be potentially changed.
No, I'm not. Explain it. If iron is healthy, and heavy metals are, indeed toxic, why did we end up with a crowd of hare brained idiots, and not super geniuses who built a moon city?
reply to below:
It doesn't have to be space, that was just an example. It could be anything else.
What I'm saying is that the cerebellum is the statistical machine. But its power is limited by fundamental limits. You start getting correlations everywhere as the number of inputs grows. And you get paranoid. This is probably why even land birds don't get brains much larger than what they have, there is no point.
So you need data reduction (like the autoencoder, or similar) that reduces the data into fewer outputs that carry all the essential meaning, so that the correlation machine only operates in the latent space that only contains sensible things. (I suppose you could use it to make an actual AGI with resources that I don't have)
The thing is, if you disable the neocortex, the data reduction machine, you get people that seem smarter. They make conclusions that others can't and understand things that look like nonsense to everybody else. But all that extra stuff is delusions, hallucinations, and pure nonsese.
Yes, as far as I know iron and iron rich foods are traditionally known to be harmful in china, agriculture depended heavily on recycling, which keeps heavy metals in soil, and some foods that limit lead absorption (such as cheese) have been abandoned at some point in their history. But more or less, they are just lagging behind in the "cleanup" and "fignting anemia".
This is misleading. A rise or fall in one kind disease doesn't mean anything out of context. Most people die of something so a fall in one disease may just as well mean that people die from something else instead. In this case, the drop in cancer seems to be the inverse of the rise in "neuropsychiatric conditions and drug use disorders". You can't die of cancer, when you are already dead from fentanyl overdose.