AUSA GLENN LEON’S NIGHTMARE PART A OR 3
“..What the Department of Justice and DEA forgot in their War on Medicine, “Doctors et al., in Healthcare Fraud, they had created their own fraud and thus their own destruction..“ – norman j.clement dds,rph
NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC.T. SPIRIT OF REV. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS MD, PH.D., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MD LESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., RICHARD KAUL, MD., LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NJOKU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
“The idea that art grows from an inherent attribute not only of mind but of the physical brain gains special poignance in the context from which the author views it: as an explanation of the enduring power and compulsiveness of the literary-based in the biological urgency in the structure of mind/brain to fill in the gaps. Biology is also destiny for literature. ” — David Porush, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
THE CHINESE ROOM: ALL WATCHED OVER BY THEIR MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
In 1974, Lawrence H. Davis imagined duplicating the brain using telephone lines and offices staffed by people. In 1978, Ned Block envisioned that the entire population of China would be involved in such a brain simulation.
Likewise, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Statistics and AUSA Glenn Leon’s Healthcare Fraud Task Force possess artificial intelligence algorithms that have similarly engaged in clandestine experiments against physicians and patients, also known as the China brain, the “Chinese Nation,” or the “Chinese Gym.”
Imagine you’re a commander aboard a warship, surrounded by screens and consoles in a highly sophisticated combat information center (CIC).
Every decision you make relies on interpreting streams of data presented in symbols, much like a person trying to understand Chinese by manipulating symbols they don’t comprehend.
This scenario resembles John Searle’s famous Chinese Room argument, which questions whether a system processing symbols can genuinely understand their meaning.
The Chinese Room argument, created by philosopher John Searle, is a thought experiment that challenges the idea that a computer running a program can truly “understand” or have a mind, even if it seems to behave intelligently like a human. Imagine a room with a person inside who doesn’t understand Chinese.
However, this person has a set of rules (a program) that tells them how to respond to Chinese characters (words or phrases) they receive as input.
INSTRUCTION
Using these rules, the person can produce Chinese characters as output, creating the appearance that they understand Chinese.
From the outside, it might seem like the person inside the room understands the language, but they follow instructions without any actual understanding.
Searle argues that this is similar to what happens when a computer runs a program. The computer can process input and produce output in a way that mimics understanding, but it doesn’t actually “understand” anything—it’s just manipulating symbols according to a set of rules.
Therefore, Searle concludes that even the most advanced computer program, no matter how intelligent it seems, doesn’t indeed have a mind or consciousness.
In essence, Searle’s argument is against the idea that computers can have minds like humans because they can perform tasks that seem intelligent. He believes proper understanding and consciousness can’t be achieved by running a program, no matter how complex.
Patrick Hew explored this analogy in the context of military command and control systems.
He argues that just as the person in the Chinese Room doesn’t truly “understand” Chinese, a commander might risk losing moral agency if the command system reduces meaningful information into symbols.
Hew’s analysis mainly draws on the tragic USS Vincennes incident, where a warship mistakenly shot down a civilian airliner, possibly due to the crew’s overreliance on data processed at a symbolic level without adequately “up-converting” it back into meaningful information.
Hew, emphasizes that for commanders to maintain their moral agency, military systems must support them in processing information at the level of meaning—not just symbols.
This involves ensuring that any information reduction to symbols is matched by a process that restores its full context and meaning, allowing for informed and morally responsible decisions.
In essence, the commander should not become a mere cog in the machine, losing the capacity to discern the ethical dimensions of their actions.
This insight is crucial for designing future military systems, where the balance between technology and human moral judgment must be carefully maintained to prevent tragic errors and ensure accountability.
Now assume you’re trying to figure out what makes someone truly conscious—what gives them that feeling of being aware and alive.
One perspective on this is biological naturalism, which suggests that you can’t just look at how a brain works or what it does to understand consciousness. Instead, it would help if you considered the brain’s specific biological “machinery”—the actual physical stuff it’s made of.
ALL WATCHED OVER BY AUSA GLENN LEON’S MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
According to this view, consciousness isn’t something you can understand by studying behavior or how well something functions; it’s tied directly to the biology of the brain itself. Biological naturalism contrasts behaviorism, a theory focusing on observable behavior (e.g., the U.S. Department of Justice’s Panopticonism).
Behaviorism suggests that you can understand the mind by looking at what people do, not by considering what’s happening in their brains.
CONTINUE TO PART B of 3
FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN
THE NORMS
