tar

Imatfaal, That 70.53 I am thinking is important, the obtuse angle of course is then 109.47, because the four angles of the flat diamond would have to add to 360. But we have already decided that the diamond is not flat, or not flat yet. Those angles are taken on the projection of the rays eminating from the center of the sphere, as to where they cut the plane that is normal to the sphere and touching the center of the diamond. What is interesting to note, is that the obtuse angle, when measured on a plane, normal to the sphere, at the vertex or junction is actually 120 and the 70.53 is actually a 90 degree angle at the vertex. So the function, I was talking about earlier might be the one that takes 120 to 109.47 in the limit, and takes 90 to 70.53. I am thinking this will work, because when you divide the diamond in half side to side and not vertex to vertex you keep the same diamond proportions on all 4 diamonds you thusly create from the one. And each of these diamonds can similarly be divided in perfect four, retaining the diamond proportion. As the diamond shape gets smaller, it also gets flatter, never getting completely flat, but necessarily approaching the 109.47 to 70.53 angle. Since the curved sphere sees the angles as 120 and 90, and the "flat" side sees the same angles as 109.47 and 70.53, pi should be in there somewhere. Regards, TAR

Over two weeks now, without nicotine...learning how to think and feel and live, without dependence on the stuff. It is possible. And I am breathing a bit easier. Actually breathing a lot easier, noticablely easier. Only problem is, after a week I woke up with a pain in my left chest, it hurt when I coughed. I am hoping it is muscle and not lung that hurts when I sneeze. Otherwise, I chose to divorce nicotine a bit too late. We will see. Anyway, to anyone interested in stopping, try my hour game on Saturday when you wake up. You can smoke the rest of the day if you want, but see if you can life without nicotine for that first hour of the day. You will be amazed to find the cigarette lit in your mouth anyway, but for the sake of the game, and the trial, remember the rules of the game. Don't reach for it, if its in your mouth, don't light it, put it down, next to the pack, if its in your mouth, lit, do not inhale, take it out and put it in the ashtray, and let it burn, don't reach for it, if you find it in your mouth, do not inhale, put it back in the ashtray and let it burn. No promises, no defeat, no victory. Just play the game, one time, one Saturday morning. The rest is between you and you. After that first hour (or 56 minutes in my case) you will understand exactly where you stand with nicotine. Exactly. And the rest is between you and you. Regards, TAR

Physica, Another instance where math and logic say one thing and reality says another. If you take an ideal ball and drop it from a height, and it bounces up half way the initial height, and down again, on and on, you can show that the ball should have bounced an infinite amount of times within the finite period of time it would take to come to rest. You can not actually count to infinity so if you where to actually count the bounces, there would have to have come a last bounce. Even though logic and math say that the ball bounced an infinite amount of times before it came to rest in a finite amount of time, I say that it did not because it could not have done such a thing. There is something else that had to have happened where the elastisity of the ball caused a compression and rarefaction, but the ball did not leave the ground. At this point, you can effectively stop counting bounces, and therefore not have to get to infinity. Besides, as far as we know there is not a distance shorter than a plank's length, or perhaps not a distance shorter than the distance from one end of a quark to the other end. In this case, once the height of the hypothetical bounce becamee smaller than the shortest length there is, we can effectively stop counting bounces. Regards, TAR

Physica, Was shown a mathematical proof in high school, that proved that 1=2. Could not find the problem. Read the thing over and talked about it, with the whole class and nobody could find the problem. Teacher knew where it was, and finally showed us where a division by zero had been inadvertently carried out. Such is my opinion of any logical formulation that proves a tortoise can not be overtaken by a warrior. Somebody is inadvertently dividing by zero, or not taking some important aspect of reality into account, when they come up with a logical paradox. I know this to be true. You know this to be true. You even have repeated it 6 times, that using calculus you can see that it is possible for the warrior to overtake the tortoise. So I say, if somebody tells you that 1=2, keep looking for the inadvertant division by zero, and don't take your failure to see the fault in the logic as proof that there is no fault in the logic. There HAS TO BE a fault in the logic, any time logic predicts a result which does not fit reality. You say a well known and proved logical paradox was finally shown to be incorrect by calculus, and that it was possible, all along, for the warrior to overtake the tortoise. Exactly the determination that any observer, even in BC times, would have come to. There is no reason to think that a tortoise could not be overtaken by a warrior. None at all. Regards, TAR

Mike, Couple of things. As already pointed out, the machete negates the "uncontacted" tribe thing.. And as already pointed out, the helicopter is not a magical thing. They have seen such, before. It is a "real" part of their world. (Which is as much theirs as ours, and neither us nor them have any special rights to it, over the other), This leads me to believe that your fear that the world would fall apart, would we have confirmed knowledge of other than Earth Based life/societies/technology, is most probably unfounded. As SwansonT noted, if a thing was real, it would be scientifically verifiable and completely acceptable as an occurence. Nobody is liable to have their heads fall off in response. Quite the opposite would probably occur, with responses like "oh, THAT's what they look like", that makes sense...I figured as much, all along. I hope they don't leave litter on the beach, or steal my girlfriend, or refuse to pay the visitor tax. And another assumption you are making, that has already been pointed out as possibly false, is that they would even care what we thought about their presence. It is completely possible that other than Earth evolved life, exists in the universe, but that life would not have to go by our rules, since they do not have our history. Niether our environmental history, nor our cultural history. Their technology might not even be comprable, and they might easily go by completely different standards, and exist on a different time and size scale than would be pertinent to us. In other words, a possible alien could visit the Earth and not even consider us, one way or the other. Like we could take a walk through the woods and never ask the salamander if she minded. And then, as well, there could be life somewhere, right now, that would say hello, if they knew about us, but don't know about us. An "uncontacted" race of this type could experience a rise and fall in reach and technology, and we could never find out about them, and they could never find out about us. And both them and us would be scientifically real, and members of "this" universe. I don't think we need superior folk to explain our condition. They are liable to be experiencing the same universe as we do, and therefore,would have the same cosmic history, belong to the same reality, and would be at a similar loss to explain why there is something, rather than nothing, as we are at. Regards, TAR

Hum, I was hoping to accidently say something correct in nature, just by randomly waving my hands and making sounds. Here you are expecting some cleverness? Good luck with that. Intentionality is impossible according to you.

physica, I never understood "proofs". It has been explained to me numerous times, and I have never "gotten" it. What I do however understand is contradiction. When the turtle and runner paradox was presented to me high school math class, I did not take it as some deep unanswerable paradox. It was just plain stupid. The runner could overtake the turtle, so the logic was wrong. Just plain wrong. Incorrect and the goal in my mind was to figure out where the logic was wrong, not to sit around in some sort of stuper being amazed at such a crazy impossible paradox holding any kind of validity. So basically I don't get your point about needing a theory to solve zeno's paradox. All you need is to show Zeno where his logic was wrong. Has nothing what so ever to do with Mike. He is talking on two levels. He is asking a question on two levels. What is the universe doing? What can we say about it? And if it comes down to whether the universe is doing something correctly, or whether Zeno's logic is correct, I will go with the universe. Regards, TAR

Acme, Mental is a natural thing. Considering places where nature has a memory, is not basterizing the term. It is looking for those things about nature, that wound up with us mental creatures emerging from it. As in whatever a crystal is doing when it grows has something to do with how a mitochondria can replicate itself. If a sound, a frequency fed through a horn to a needle placed on a revolving disc of vinyl is imprinted on the vinyl, the vinyl is holding a memory of the sound. An analog representation of the vibrations of the air that were cause by the rubbing together of grasshopper legs or human vocal chords, or the vibration of piano wire, that caused the sound. If you, in your mind are holding an analog memory of a vibration, if you "remember" how something sounded, or looked, or felt, if you have "symbolized" the thing, and have one thing standing for another, how is this something that you are doing in some unbasterised, unnatural way, that saying the vinyl record having memory, would be a bastardisation of. Since when is "mental" to be held different and distinct, as a different and superior, magical and unnatural condition, that humans have accidently aquired that no other place or peice of the universe is allowed to exhibit even a glimmer of? The whole challege put to Mike, and taken up as well by me and a few others, is to come up with a measure for the thing or things that pull the universe together and like gravity, and life, and a non closed system, do not adhere exactly to the equations of entropy, that are something more than just accidents but are emergent entities with some presence and with some characteristics that belong to them specially and set up possibilities that at least can be considered regular and intentional, and about, one can wonder, and consider with a little awe and to which one can assign a little credit for uniqueness and capability and special characteristics that are all the entitie's own. As if not accidental, but intentionally and purposefully arranged. To fit, to survive or what ever the purpose. If some microbe, freezedried for 10 years finds itself with the right amount of moisture and warmth, the thing comes to life. Accidental? No, I think it was the intention of that microbe to do just that. Mike and I may not have made our case. Mike may not have come up with the measure we can use yet. But that does not mean you have made your case. Your case is actually already contradicted by there actually being cleverness in the universe. You could not possibly prove there is no cleverness in the universe, naturally occurring, without using a clever argument, in which case you you then have made Mike and my case, by exhibiting such naturally come upon cleverness. Regards, TAR

Acme, OK, well let's then take a different tack. Consider memory. If something has memory, if it retains a form or pattern or frequency, if it "copies" something else, is this "clever" or not? Is this accidental or not? Regards, TAR

physica, So, the theory fails, if it does not give direction as to whether math, logic or observation trumps all? My interest in the approach and the questions raised here is related to my personal investigation of the meaning behind language. That a chinese person can be talking about a cloud and a russian person can be talking about a cloud, and even though the language they use is completely different, looks different, sounds different...a cloud is still a cloud. What they each "mean" is the same thing. So take a cloud, and apply math to it, and logic to it and observation to it, and none of the three trump the cloud. The cloud is the thing as it is. The math and the logic are what we can say about the cloud, the observation is the sensing of the cloud, getting the form "into" our memory for comparision, and prediction. So the lingual theory of everything does not particularly give direction as to which trumps which, but does not "fail" because of this. It just fails to answer your question, as framed by you. Regards, TAR

Acme, OK, so sort of a cosmic banter. I am a lousy banterer. If you think the universe is clever, call it clever. If you think it is a fool, call it a fool. But don't pretend you have it right and Mike and I have it wrong. That is unbecoming of a fellow piece of the universe. If we have become clever by accident, so be it. It is still cleverness that the universe shows. That some cosmic constant "could have been" this or that by chance, and its just by chance that it is what it is, is silly talk. If it could have been some other number, it would be, and its not. So where is the chance in that? This is the universe we have, and we have no other options. Having just one option, leaves absolutely nothing to chance. Either there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes or there is not. I say there is. Its obvious that there is. And its silly talk to say there is not. As if you know what cleverness is, and it is certainly not this universe that shows any sign of it. Really? Cleverness is as clever does and this universe goes by some very specific constant rules, has been doing clever stuff for 13.8 billion years, and has spawned galaxies, planets and Suns, and a wide assortment of clever arrangements of matter and energy, including snowflakes, mitochondria, beehives and battleships. Regards, TAR Don't know what this has to do with, but consider this. In 600 billion years, nobody will remember or care what happened here today. Probably in 200 years or 100 nobody will remember or care. But for now, and here, there is more than one entity that cares, and that is what matters, and its THAT that proves that there is evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes. Because there is some here and there is some now, and it had to have come about naturally, because anything not natural would be supernatural or impossible, or magic, or require a non-existant god, or an imaginary force or entity.

Acme, I suppose that is important to note. that chance is not an anathema to wonder. I think I tend to be a little defensive on this board, as thoughts of God are an anathema to a well bred scientist, and being "friendly" with the universe is sometimes conflated with "religious" type thoughts. I have in general the feeling that I am on the same side as the universe. I suppose its possible for someone to feel they are on the other side, but what sense does that make? How can you be "other than" the universe. Not that I don't have enemies, and fears, and things I dislike...but I do, on the whole, feel pretty good about the place, and don't like people degrading it down to some random nothing of thing, when it is the exact opposite. Regards, TAR

Acme, I often consider my ideas mistaken, but what is correct on one level can be questionable on another, and vice-a-versa. You talk about strange loops, and Escher, and paradoxes as if I have not considered them. I am 60 years old, of above average intelligence, have engaged in classes and conversations with very well educated and incredibily intelligent folk, and read a few books, here and there. I stepped outside a few moments ago to see if I could catch the eclipse of the moon. Don't know if I was early or late, or even if the missing portion was due to cloud or Earth, but my thought was, that millions of others could potentially experience the same event. It was really happening, and the happening tied me to it and anybody else witnessing it to it, and thus tied everybody witnessing it together. Like I could look at rendering of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation and you could look at it, and we both would be experiencing the same thing, and be tied to the same reality. What ever you might consider I-ness is unseperable from the universe we share. Part of our "thinking" happens outside our brains. Our brains are formed of the world, and reacting to the world, with every sensed frequency and pattern and form. Sure, one will always find themselves back where they started. Self reference is the only reference a self has. It is only as strange as you wish to consider it to be. Is my thinking incorrect and incomplete? Has to be. Is my experience of the world actual and wonderful. Has to be. Is cleverness evident in nature and its processes? What other choice is there? How could it be otherwise? Regards, TAR

Acme, Well, I have been musing on the topic of I-ness for most of my life. I have made some of my own determinations as to what must be the case. Thing is, one of the most obvious things to me, is that whatever a single one of us is capable of, the universe has to be capable of, because a single one of us is in and of the universe. If a single one of us is clever and there is no magic and no god, then the universe is a clever arrangement, able to spawn, at the very least life as it exists on Earth, and has existed for many eons. I do not see any need or purpose or value or reason to discount the capability of the universe, as if it is subordinate to us, sub human, not as good as us, when it is so obvious in terms of complexity and size, and duration, that the universe is way way way our superior in every single way you can think of or imagine. That the I-ness is a result of a particular focus, a particular place and time that a human mind exists, at this one point, this one position that our body/brain/heart groups takes up, is evident. Our senses and our memories, and our motor skills allow us to learn about the Earth and its environs, and move about and manipulate the place to our advantage. We don't do these things accidently and randomly, we do them quite intentionally, and we see others around us of similar constructions, doing similar things as us,. for similar reasons. There is some chance involved, but its mostly conscious, willfull behavior. I know for instance in the case of TAR, he has been excercising willful behaviour, and moving purposefully around the place for the last 60 years. If that I-ness that I know, and that I know others know, and you know, and am rather certain others before us have known, seems "strange" to you, I am rather surprised. It is the ONLY way a human can sense the place, and know that the universe exists, and he/she is in and of the place. From this perspective, this point of view, this position, this observation point that is a human I. To suggest that reality does not have everything to do reality is rather goofy. Therefore, if you are going to say anything in human language about the universe, it is going to be from a human perspective. There is no human I know, or ever knew about, or can imagine, that could observe the world in some different fashion, from some different perspective, than a human one. If they could observe the place from a different perspective than a human one, they would not be human. I-ness is a requirement to know the rest of the universe. Not loopily strange at all. Plain as day. Everybody knows I-ness. Everybody knows the universe, from here and now. Regards, TAR

spyman, Good advice. That is to expect to have a yearn to visit the old friend from time to time. I think that has been my downfall in the past, other occasions where I had stopped for a month or two. Every time, the starting smoking again, happened the same way. I rewarded myself with a smoke, telling myself I was over it, and could just enjoy the "one". Then a week later, I would rationalize that I had not been quit for two months, but only for a week, and there would be no harm in having a weekly cigarette...the next day I had not been quit for a week, but for a day, and there would be little harm in a daily reward...smoking again. This time, I have the worry about damaging my ability to breath on my own, and having the feeling that if I continued to smoke, there would come a time when I would have to pay for it, in a way where I would question myself as to why I continued to smoke, when I could have easily NOT smoked. So I agree, that "wanting" to not smoke is important in not inviting the old, but undesireable friend back into your life. It is important not to let yourself think that you can be so "strong" and in command, that you could smoke just here and there and it would be alright. Its best to just not indulge yourself, because if you do, it will be easier to indulge yourself again and again. After all, nicotine is an addictive substance, and by definition, you are going to want to feel its effects again. I think my downfall before, was in thinking I was "over" nicotine, and no longer under its power. Well I probably am, at the moment, not under nicotine's draw, having not smoked for a week. Smoking a cigarette now though, would put me back under its draw, so the mistake would be thinking I would be immune from its draw, "this time" for some odd reason. Fact is, nicotine is a rather attractive and clingy "old friend", and the best strategy, if you want to quit, and stay quit is to ween yourself off nicotine in what-ever manner suits you, and not let the substance back in your life in any "partial" way. Regards, TAR

Acme, Ok, I will have to read it for myself, to know what you are talking about, but for the purposes of the thread topic, if I were to stipulate that your understanding of Hofstadler would be similar to mine, were I to read him, do you think I would think there was evidence of cleverness in nature and its processes, after I read Hofstadler and understood his arguments? Regards, TAR Acme, I was thinking about your blind chance requirement, earlier today. The fact that there is even a term such as blind chance, implies that there is something that is not blind chance, that one could judge blind chance against. Something not blind, or purposeful. If it is a requirement, sans God, that all must proceed and exist and emerge by accident, with no intent or memory, but there is, within our view and consciousness, intent and memory, and purposeful things, then the universe must have accidently come up with structures and entities and emergent stuff, that is NOT accidental, with which and against which, we can judge accidental, blind chance occurences. If you will, the universe accidentally chanced upon suns and planets and seas and mountains, crystals and snowflakes, light and energy, carbon atoms and carbon based life, birds and fish and mammals, humans and scientists, poets and kings. But now that these things have emerged, it is no accident that they should continue to exist. They rather continue to exist, quite purposefully. To be what they are, in direct opposition to accidently being something else. Regards, TAR

physica, From the beginning of this thread, people, including myself have raised objectiions to portions of the theory, demanded clarification, and showed reservations concerning certain aspects of it. But you have missed the most important word in the OP. Lingual. Mike is not proposing a theory that will explain and predict everything, outside of human perception, and thought and language. He is exploring the world we perceive, within the context of us percieving it, and talking about it. A lingual theory of everything, presuposes us talking about the place. How we think and talk about stuff is a component. You, for instance are talking about math and logic, as if they exist without us, as if symbols and language are the thing we are symbolizing and talking about. I am rather sure it has to be the other way round, and we experience, and talk about a thing that is already manifest, and characterise it, the best we can, and discover more about it, with every observation, and share our findings through language. A lingual theory of everything is not likely to result in being able to create universes with thought. Except in the ways we actually do bring our thoughts into reality. We do, on many occasions, as Mike suggests, copy the tubes of opportunity, that the universe has already in its nature. Either we use ones already apparent, or we take a hint from some aspect or characterisation and copy the thing, and make the tubes and paths and roadways, and garbage shutes, and cathode ray tubes that will reduce the resistance to happening, that the thing we want to happen would otherwise encounter, without the tube of opportunity. And don't forget that what can be said about a thing, is not necessarily knowing the thing as it is. So you can tell me that math and science have found that many things are true, that are counter intuitive. I would simply answer, that if its counter intuitive, if it results in a paradox, if it makes you think that a warrior cannot overtake a turtle, or if it results in an obvious contradiction, it is not true, and there is something wrong with your characterisation, your formulae or your logic. Because the universe itself is not capable of doing anything that does not fit exactly with every other manifest thing. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And every motion of anything, is done in the context of everything else. Every position there is, is there in reference to everything else. And most importantly, for discerning the usefulness or validity of a Lingual theory of everything, is that anything you can say about the universe, is a response to what the universe has already shown you to be true and manifest and possible. It is not likely that your model, in the lingual sense can be more true, than the thing in itself, that you are modeling. Regards TAR Pub talk? Perhaps. But I don't think so. Besides, I don't drink anymore, gave it up in 1980. So any allusion to drunkeness, or frivolity, on your part, concerning this thread and its value, I believe to be way off the mark.

Physica, Couldn't follow your against logic and with math thing. It does not matter if the logic is wrong or the math is wrong, it is easy to see that a warrior can overtake a tortoise. We knew, 2500 years ago a warrior would overtake a tortoise, even with a head start. We know now, a warrior will overtake a tortoise, whether we prove it by logic, or by math, or by simple observation. It is not counter intuitive that a warrior should overtake a tortoise. It is obvious and real, and actual fact. If you have some logic, or some math that says a manifest thing, an actual reality is impossible, I will tell you with great confidence, that you are mistaken. Regards, TAR Physica, By the way, I follow Mike's threads because he does not take anybody's answers as final answers and if a question remains in his mind about a thing, he looks into it and forms a hypothesis and observes reality and sees if it contradicts his hypothesis or not, and makes the required adjustments when contradictions are noted. He also posts nice pictures that are interesting and attractive that show examples of the thoughts he is having. I personally believe Mike to be a man of science. Honest and smart, and a nice guy to boot. He is exploring the place, and discovering stuff. If you already have all the answers, then tell me what gravity is, and what pi is, and why there is something rather than nothing. If not, if you don't know why these things are, and why they are not something else, don't act as if you know better than Mike. I would rather be on Mike's team than yours. I have no idea what you are trying to understand, or prove, or discover, or enjoy. Regards, TAR

Mike, Strange looking island you've got there. Does not quite look like NJ. As for finding your way out, I would try the method I used to find my way home one time I got lost in the woods when I wandered too far off the path, and could not find my way back to it. My strategy was, to go down hill. I figured I would eventually find a stream which I could follow, like a path, to a larger stream, then a river, and eventually civilization of some sort. Thought the only place in the country this would not work was death valley or some place out west that was below sea level. i did wind up finding a swamp, which I followed around, looking for its outlet and it turned out to be a swamp I was familiar with, so I was found. (but I know you are not really lost, so you won't need to follow this brilliant strategy) Acme, So, launching something out in front of you, and having it disapear from view, and wind up hitting you in the back of the head is not "strange"? How strange do you need to have a loop, to call it strange? I have not read the book but I did not like the title. If the loops are that strange, they are probably not real. If they are real, then they can't be that strange, because they would be perfectly normal and natural to be what they were. So how strange do you figure a loop needs to be, to be a strange one? Regards, TAR

I would like to add my last couple of weeks experience to the discussion of Nicotine tapering, from a slightly different angle, with a slightly different method, and a combination of cold turkey and tapering, whose efficacy is yet to be determined, but might be put into the war chest of anyone that would like to quit, but have not been able to. I am 60, have been smoking since I was 13, and have rather strongly worked nicotine into my "way of life", how I think, how I feel, how I handle stress, how I reward myself, and what I consider "feeling right". There is nothing like an after lunch cigarette. Nothing else accomplishes the same things. But I have been noticing shortness of breath, and funny sounds coming from my lungs, that indicate to me, that continuing to smoke is not a very smart plan, if staying alive and able to breath on my own, is my plan. Starting with the simple thought that one will not die if they refrain from smoking a cigarette, while one may very well die if they refuse to refrain from smoking a cigarette, I tried the following experiment. I taught myself to exist without nicotine. I am still learning this new skill, and have not found the replacement for the after lunch cigarette, nor how to handle the ungoverned thoughts and smells and memories and such that I have previously handled with nicotine, nor exactly how to proceed in situations that always before involved reaching for a cigarette, but these things are between me and me, and I should be able to figure new strategies for each requirement. What I did two weeks ago, was woke up with the thought that I had already been quit for 6 hours and my nicotine levels, were low, and THIS is what not smoking would be like. I wanted a cigarette and reached for one. I told myself, don't reach for one. I found one in my hand, and told myself to put it down. I found one in my mouth, and told myself not to light it, and to put it down., I found one lit in my mouth, and told myself not to inhale, and to put it in the ashtray and let it burn. I would reach for the cigarette in the ashtray, and tell myself not to reach for it, and to let it burn. I played this game with myself through several cigarettes, and had a goal of continuing to play the game for an entire hour. I lasted 56 minutes and finally just smoked one, but I learned I could exist without the nicotine, for an hour, without any ill effects. The next day, I drove to visit my dad and did not smoke a cigarette when I woke up, or my usual one on the toilet on in the car, nor did I go out on the deck and smoke at my Dad's house, as I usually would. I did not smoke until I was on my way home...about 7 waking hours without nicotine, plus the 6 prior sleeping hours, that is over 12 hours. I continued the week, smoking but trying to extend the lengths of time it would be until I smoked, following waking up, and I called it "pratice" living without nicotine. I did not smoke driving into work Monday, nor during breaks or lunch, but finally borrowed a cigarette from a co-worker around 4 and smoked on the way home. The next day I put my cigarettes in the trunk and did not retreive them until the ride home. The next day I did not use them on the ride home. I bought a pack of cigarettes on the way home Friday, but did not smoke them till the early morning hours of Saturday. Thought that would be my last pack until a found another pack in a jacket, which I smoked on Sunday. I finished that pack around 7pm on Sunday, and have not purchased any more, nor smoked any since. I am currently experiencing life on a low level of nicotine, having not smoked for 5 going on 6 days, and am working through developing strategies to deal with all the habitual situations that would normally involve lighting up. Its just between me and me. I am not saying I am stopped, nor that I do not like to smoke. But people at work, and family members are proud of me, for not smoking, because they know its "hard". It is really not hard, to not smoke. What is hard is to not want the nicotine, because its nice to be high on nicotine. So my suggestion to people who would like to not smoke is to practice living without nicotine and you might just find that it is no so very terrible a condition. And where you do find it is a terrible condition, figure out some other strategy, other than nicotine, that will fill the void. Don't reach for it. Don't light it. Put it down. Don't inhale, put it in the ashtray and let it burn. Play the game for the first hour when you wake up, and practice living without nicotine. No promises, no denial, no defeat, no victory. Just no need to reach for one if you are trying to experience life without being high on nicotine. Which might just work out OK for me, yet. My car still stinks, but I air it out every day, and its getting better, and I can already feel my breathing getting clearer and deeper. Regards, TAR No one has died yet, because I have refrained from getting high on nicotine...well there is this one guy at work that I locked horns with... but I am a big boy, I can learn how to work things out without going out and getting high on nicotine...hopefully.

Acme, So still you think I hold beliefs counter to Hofstadler? From your description of Strange Loops, and my quick Wiki reads on him, I see no contradictions forming between my take and his. While you suggest there is something I will discover or be led to understand in reading Strange Loops, that will support your arguments, and defeat mine. I was trying to engage the "loop" idea, with my hypothetical example of launching a projectile that way, that would, because you exist on the Earth, which is already a ball, with certain geometry and gravity, that would make it not only possible, but predictable, that the projectile would come around, and hit you in the back of the head. The existance of the ball, already, with the geometry and the gravity, establishes a more than random chance situation. A situation that already has some unique characteristics about it. Some other than random, unpredictable components. You and I both can count on the Earth continuing to turn to where day will turn to night and night will turn to day, as the position on the Earth where we stand is facing the Sun or not. There is some very much NOT random subtance to this particular situation we are in. That we should fit it, is a given. That we should fit it, because of random chance, is a silly thought. Regards, TAR

Acme, So if we agree that one should keep their mouth shut, unless they have something decent to say, and this is the ethical thing to do, then saying indecent things, that offend the assembled, is unethical, inappropriate, indecent, wrong behavior. Since the definition of troll includes the intention of offending the assembled, then trolling is unethical behavior Regards, TAR davidivad, Have you known your sister to troll internet sites? Regards, TAR

CharonY, But consider the study that showed males tended to play team sports with winners and losers. This is social, certainly, this is cooperative, within the team, and even social between the teams as rules are followed, and is similar to male lions banding together to reach a certain goal. Its a social dynamic, complex and observable in natural social groups from lion to human. It has something to do with sexism, but not in a completely negative way. I can offer examples of differences between males and females from studies and experiences and personal introspection and from the difference, form an understanding of the situation of men and women living together and working together in the home, the family, the workplace and government. I can entertain thoughts of whether things would be better or worse if women ran this or that team, and what the internal dynamics would be, and what changes women would institute in an organisation, because there is a difference, and women understand T ball and men do not. It is not me making some blind assertion, and extrapolating. It is me making observations and seeing how they fit together, what they mean, and what adjustments one sex should make to understand the "ways" of the other. And I do not "see" what assertions I am forwarding that are "distasteful" to this venue, or unscientific or based on inappropriate or wrong generalisations. There was a deer standing in front of my dad's car a couple years ago, pawing the ground and snorting, challenging my dad's car. I am not going to tell you the sex of the animal. You already know. In addition you already know it was rutting season as well. Its the only time of the year, and the only sex that would make sense to explain the situation and the behavior. It is this "extrapolation" that I use, to suggest that a troll is probably a male. Regards, TAR

CharonY, I don't think I am being ignorant about women, nor do I think I am blatently wrong about women in a correctable fashion. My comment was that Alpha Males know more about being Alpha Males than females do. I would imagine Alpha females know more about being Alpha females than males do. My commment has to do with an observation about testosterone that seems in my experience to lead males to be more independantly bullheaded than females. While certainly there are animals where the female plays a lead role, I was thinking about lions and stags and walrus where the males will combat for breeding rights, and young males are not welcome in the harem, unless they defeat the king. This difference between the "make up" of men and women, has some real hormonal and child rearing reasons, and is actual, and not an "ignorant" opinion on my part. I was using it as the basis for a theory concerning why it might be more likely that a male is a troll, than a female. Basically because a male does not mind being a loner, as much as a female might. And the school yard thing was a study I heard about, it is not something I made up. I have two daughters and a wife and do not consider myself ignorant of women, or unfriendly to any cause or societal movement that would be beneficial to women. I was living with my Aunt, a very strong and brilliant feminist in the 60s, and my cousin was probably one of the first young women in the country to wear jeans to school. My Aunt actually helped cause a change in the dress code at my High School that allowed females to wear slacks. I do not think I am the least bit ignorant of women's issues, nor blatently wrong about there being a hormonal difference between men and women. And in the context of the topic of trolls, believe I still may have a valid point about club membership, and a male's proclivity to make mischief for his own pleasure, being stronger than that of a woman, who has a more cooperative, non-competitive nature. Regards, TAR

Swansont, No, my 50s sexism was not meant as an example of trolling. But it does bring up a point about the OP or the trolling topic and Poe's law and all that, in that it is said to be impossible to distinquish between genuine extremism and feigned extremism on a board, especially without smilely faces. Reality is, when it comes to TAR, I am the genuine article. Kooky no doubt, but not feigning anything for effect. Just registering my opinions, for the sake of conversation, and for the sake of adding my two cents in the hopes that somebody is collecting pennies. I have faith that the bad pennies will be tossed and the good ones put in the bank...eventually...but any bad pennies I offer, are offered in good faith, and are not intentionally offered as bad pennies. Not that many of my opinions are not flawed, or partially sexist, or homophobic, or racist, or brash, or uncaring of this or that person's feelings, but I attempt to be honest and ethical in the presentation of my opinions. To be sexist or homophobic or hold the beliefs and opinions I have and NOT express them honestly would be unethical. But here we are back to the problem in identifying a troll, since it is SO difficult to tell the difference between genuine holders of non-mainstream, extremist beliefs, and a parody of them. Regards, TAR