tar

Hoola, Well wait a minute. If maths evolve, then they can't be the basis. Might as well stick with particle evolution, and just use math to describe it. On the other universe topic, I am of the opinion that other universes have no bearing on this one. If they did, then they would be part of this one's past, present or future. If they have no bearing on this one, in any way at all, then there is no need for comparison, no reason for comparison, and most importantly no way to ever know even the slightest thing about any "other" universe. If there was a way to see the results of, or effects of "another" universe on this one, then it would have bearing on this one, and therefore be an aspect of this one. So...other universes are not worth talking about, because there is nothing to say about them. Regards, TAR2 On the duppelganger thing, I am of the opinion that if there was another me somewhere in the universe, it would not be exactly me, because if we were to point at each other we would not be pointing at the same part of the universe. For instance, he would be pointing at the Milkyway, and I would be pointing at Andromeda. Making us not the same, at all, but two different beings inhabiting the same universe, in different places, in it. And since inorder to be me, he would have to have my mother and father, the U.S. the Earth and the Milky Way to be in and of, it is impossible for an exact me to be anybody else, anywhere else, but me, here. So if math is the underlying influence that you are going to start with, where did the chaos come from, in the first place? And how can the math be "added" later...if it was what you are proposing to begin with?

turionx2, Another aspect to consider is who you are measuring yourself against, in terms of knowing instinctively what logic and philosphy were. And who it was that you grew up around, in terms of their ability to use logic, and wonder about the world, and search for true things about it, and your mimicking of or deviation from their attitudes and examples. Consider such a claim as yours being made by someone very dull, and with limited experience and knowledge and with only one or two "insights" under their belt. Would you be able to tell them they did not know what logic was, or what philosophy was? If you had not learned what logic and philosophy were, how would you know you had them, and knew what they were already? I have done some thinking about insights I have had, and it is difficult to imagine being me, "before" the insight, since once you have an insight, its part of you, and not really possible to "forget". It already makes sense and is quite obvious and true, and has worked its way into all your thinking. It is sort of like trying to imagine yourself and the world, "before" your child came into it. Especially if you are talking to them about it. Your claim is sort of like saying you were born knowing how to walk, or ride a bike...as if everybody else was not born with the same potential abilities as you were. Regards, TAR Or saying you were born knowing how to spell C A T.

Hoola, Well perhaps if we knew what gravity was, we could have a more sensible conversation. As it is, we know what gravity does, and how masses attract each other by the inverse square law and such, and even have proposed gravity wells and the warping of space and such to explain orbits and all, but we do all this, as models and calculations, that we can use to predict the forces and momentums involved with two nearby masses and their motions in reference to each other. Enough certainly to send a rover to Mars, and hit the moving target, but still, we do it all without knowing what gravity is. How and why it does what it does. Is it a push or a pull? An exchange of some particle or another, or masses just trying to "fit" the space that they themselves are defining? In terms of the lingual theory of everything, we have to make a distinction between the thing as it is, and our descriptions of it. Our descriptions of it, do not make it happen, or change it in anyway. Just allows us to try something mathematically and see if it works, see if it adds up, see if our understanding of the world would allow for something to occur if we would manipulate things just so, in theory, and then try the thing out, and see if our predictions are taking enough into consideration to actually result in a particular new arrangement of a useful sort. It still seems to me that the math follows the rules already physically evident. Not the other way around. For instance you use the term infinite, as if by using it, it must fit reality. And at the same time, you know we have not found a smaller length than a planck. So can something be infinitely small under these circumstances, or is there a physical limit that is reached, which can be broached by thought, but not violated by reality? Quantum theory dictates that there is a smallest amount of energy, that just does not get divided any further. But its not the theory that establishes the limit. It is the way it works, the way it is, the way it already was, before we noticed it to be this way. Regards, TAR2 What if the universe has never before been in the particular configuration it is currently in, and has not yet done, what it is going to do next? If that is the way it is, then there is nothing and nobody with a memory of the next state, since such a state has never before been possible to achieve, because this state must be the case, for the next state to occur. In this take, there are not maths that define the possibilities. The maths are derived from evidence of past cases, and the current arrangement. There is a tendency we have, to want the world to fit our model of it. I am thinking this is not the proper attitude. More important and realistic to adjust ones model, to fit the place. And if this is a proper take, then there is little to no chance, that a "new" math, will create a "new" universe. Anything we do with math, would have to fit the thing, inorder to work. So, if your focal points of dark energy are "refreshing" the universe, AND there is this speed of light limit to the place...(a very big place)...then what one focal point would do now, would not effect the rest of the universe, completely, until at least 45 billion years from now. Does not seem to me, that such a point, could have much primary control or be of such underlying importance in a universe such as what we appear to be in and of. Just doesn't "add up".

Hoola, I think I read that gravity is not instantaneous, but is related to C, or propogates at C. Otherwise, it would not be difficult to conceive of a device with a delicate needle in Chicago, pointing at a large mass suspended over Detroit, that would change its position when the mass was moved, before a radio wave, announcing the movement in Detroit, reached Chicago. Although I have always been perplexed by the fact that the one end of a solenoid shaft moves "at the same time" as the other end. Poking something with a long stick for instance, is somewhat analogous to action at a distance. Not to mention stuff like the curtain on the window moving "at the same time" as the door opens. If this is due to a compression wave moving through the air at the speed of sound, then a hardly stretchable string tied to one curtain and an outward opening door, would move, before the other curtain, when the door was opened. Once you start talking about experiments in space, establishing a baseline time, unrelated to position, is very difficult. Makes me wonder exactly how one determines that a particle over here has changed its state at the same time as a particle over there. Regards, TAR Water for instance, in a river, is always moving downstream, as per gravity, but standing on the shore the river looks rather stationarily sitting right in front of you. Only if you spy something on its surface floating downstream, are you aware of its movement. Take a pulsar, pulsing every second. The next pulse is only 186 thousand miles away, even though the pulsar is 50 thousand ly away. The next pulse we see, was what the pulsar did 50 thousand years ago. Do we see a pulse at the same time as it happens? Well sort of, yes. And sort of, no. Depends on "which" pulse you are considering. The Earth will revolve 50 thousand times around the Sun, before we see what that pulsar is actually doing at the moment.

Hoola, Are you sure left handed sugar wouldn't taste like backward sugar? Anyway, you were arranging molecules. Where were you getting the molecules. The computer can not generate them, just arrange them and charge them and order them and so forth. I think the dark energy points, refreshing the universe, needs some work. Besides, why is there no dark energy around here? Or is there, and we just call it something else? The plank length thing, that I related to the CMB was to illustrate that one part of the universe is not immediately known to the rest. Well it is, but only later, much later, does a photon emission on one side of even our own Galaxy get known by a receiver at the other end. That is to say that a lot has happened, even in the Milky Way, that will not effect us for everywhere from next second to next year, to next decade, to next millenium, to 100,000 years from now. Such a "setup" is quite outside the realm of a momentary model, that can be considered "at once". That is to say, that we are insulated from the rest of the universe, by not only the vast unimaginable distances involved, but the time it would take any impulse or photon, to get from there to here. Not the kind of place one can actually "get outside of" and take an objective view of. And certainly not the kind of thing you can see all at once, in any manner other than we actually do receive it. Close stuff right away, and far stuff after millions or billions of years. Interesting that the whole universe is actually within our view, so we can see it all at once. Doubtful though that there is a way to do it better. Seems quite grand enough, and unreachable enough, and complicated enough, the way it stands. Regards, TAR2

Hoola, Well I didn't quite follow your logic. Math and logic seem to be things that a human has, and a cow does not. Not that a cow is not a logical arrangement of stuff, but a proton, or an electron, while possessing a rather certain and logical form and structure, had that form and structure, before cows came about, or humans, or logic and math. On the linguistic front, I tend to go with Kant, that language consists of things we can say about something in general. He carefully laid out the kinds of understandings or discriptions, or "types" of judgements we can make, in his categories. The "thing as it is", remains something difficult, if not impossible to grasp. Math and logic are internal manipulations of the forms that we have internalized, that are already extant. We see a super nova in another galaxy, and that particular explosion not only has already existed way prior calculus, but way prior to Plato and Socrates and formal logic systems. You say that the universe is just information. I disagree. The word information means to me somewhat the opposite. The form gets in to our minds. The form itself I think of as more the "thing as it is". Building an internal model of this form, is quite a secondary thing, not liable to be the primary consideration. Consider information in a computer. Something "standing" for something else. Zeros and ones put together in a particular code and structure, to represent something else, already existant. Now the planck length distance thing is a good thought, but there are a tremendous amount of planck lengths between here and the cosmic microwave background radiation, and here and there are not immediately connected, or the same place, in the sense that both here and there can be considered "in" the same place, at the same time, as a form in ones mind can be considered. This, to me is a limitation of math and logic, as that what can be contained in a thought or a judgement, is but a mimick or analogy of what already is the case. Quite unlikely, under these conditions, that one could build "another" universe, with models of this one. It would be rather like trying to make a formula or computer program that described the position and spin and momentum of every quark in a peanut butter cup, and then expecting you could take a bite of the formula and it would be sweet and chocolately. It actually would not be a peanut butter cup, at all, now would it? Regards, TAR2

Mike Smith Cosmos, I generally take with a grain of salt, "mother lode" insights. I have had two such incidents, one about a month ago, and one about a year before that. Perhaps I will have one each year in the fall, from now on. In retrospect, the insights are not as powerful as they were at the time. Perhaps that is because I just intergrate the thing into everything else and just sort of take it as normal, after a few days or weeks, and it is no longer something so special. One aspect of insights that is interesting to me, is that you really can't "unhave" them. Once you have had a certain one it just becomes part of the way you think, part of the consistent world view that you hold. Perhaps this alligns well with your black box universe, in the sense that the universe cannot undo what it has already done, and can only do next what will now be possible with the results of the previous events and positionings of matter and energy. An analogy in the computer field, would be the wide spread use of Java applets and library code, to build a new program. The particular pieces are little black boxes that have been tested and perfected to perform a particular function in the most elegant and stable way, given to other coders, so the wheel need not be reinvented every time one designs a car. Evolution wise, it is also interesting to note, that a woman is born with a lifetime supply of eggs. That means that half of your code, was alive and existing, when your mother was born, and a quarter of you, alive and existing when your grandmother was born... a 1/whateverth of you was alive and existing when Lucy was born in Africa however many 10s of thousands of generations ago, that was. One thing that could be said about the big bang, is that certainly conditions where such, at the time, for it to have happened. One line of thought is that all matter and energy came into being, along with space and time, at that moment. In such a case, the black box is not required, because there are no precursors required, no design required or even possible, since there is no designer possible, and nothing to use as canvas and paint, if there is not yet matter and energy, space and time. Yet we seem to have this notion that the universe is one thing...that can somehow be considered as a grain of reality, that we can somehow hold in our minds and manipulate and visualize as a something amid a void. A spaceless space, a timeless moment, a still energy, a bodiless matter, that becomes, at once, everything (space, time energy and matter). There was something wrong with your diagram of the Universe as whisps on the left, the big bang in the middle and the "something else" on the right. I am thinking it is the fact that we are viewing the diagram from the "outside", and there is no way to "get" outside reality...but by shrinking the universe down to a grain size, we can hold, and wrap our mental arms around. An interesting thing that Hawkings (or an aide of his) wrote me once, correcting an incorrect image of the universe I had written to him, was that the Big Bang is not an explosion whose position is a certain distance from here, in a certain direction. We are rather AT the position of the big bang. Regards, TAR2

Perhaps time travel is not possible, and if it is not, the puzzle is mute. And if it is, we would have to know the effect of time travel on the surroundings of the traveler. The effects on the surroundings as the traveler steps into the past, the effect of the traveler on his surroundings while he is traveling back, and the effect on the surroundings the arrival of traveler would make to what was his past, that is now his present. For instance, does your unrevealed answer to the riddle hold, and fit together, if measured from a movie camera fixed on the scene, from before, during and after the event(s), and what would we see, if viewing the movie later, happening to the clock on the wall, during the supposed time traveling?

Tri, But where to draw the line? People often stick by their own guns, much to the chagrin of the people around them. Look at the speculation thread, where someone or another, and sometimes me, has latched on to an "answer" that they think has alluded everyone else. Look at "the secret of the Vedas" and Jesus' (and I paraphase because I can't remember the verse) "No one will get to heaven, but by me". These secret, private keys to existence, are in my estimation quite errant. The world is rather obvious and in plain sight, to all who are sighted. The Sun and the Moon and the stars and the clouds and the rain, the sand and seas, and the birds and beasts and plants and fungi and bacteria and other humans and their works and wills, are already known to everyone. (well maybe not bacteria, without the aid of a lens). But even the bacteria already knew how to be bacteria, before we noticed them. The world alread exists, and does quite well for itself, without our formulae and insights, and recognition of patterns and laws concerning its behavior. We each do a bit better with knowledge, than we would do without it, but knowledge is something you gain, something you learn, something you are told about, or experience or "figure out" for yourself. I do not think knowledge is an automatic thing, or an inherent thing, that one can start out with...I think you have to experience the world and remember what you experienced, inorder to gain knowledge of it. Same with morality. It is a thing that changes from birth to death, changes from one society to another, changes from one person to another, and changes as a culture or civilization progresses, ages and declines and is renewed from the ashes, like a Pheonix. My "morals", along with my society have changed since the 1950s. (I turned 60 yesterday) Changed in regards to blacks, and women, and homosexuals. Changed in regards to respect for the enviroment. Changed in regards to tolerance of foreigners, and handicapped persons and mental illness and probably in regards to a whole bunch of other considerations. Things that were proper then are improper now. Things that were improper then are proper now. Something as fluid as morals and morays, can not therefore be inherent. "Do no harm" means little if you have not defined first what is harmful, and who it is that should be protected from being thusly harmed. I smoke. Its harmful to my health. I should stop...'cept I don't want to. I like it. Am I immoral because of this habit? It was quite cool to smoke, a measure of one's worldliness and even one's manhood back in the day of the Marlboro Man. Things change. Morality is not something you are born with, its something you are born into. Regards, TAR It was, by the way, quite improper for a young lady to smoke, and quite expected of a young man...back in my youth. And women and children were NEVER sent to war. They were the folk the men were doing the fighting and dying for. Protecting THEM from harm. And in my youth it was a forgone conclusion that everyone believed in God...we knew what that meant, back then. It was people that did NOT believe in God, whose morals were suspect. Even today people are taken aback, that I would call myself an atheist, as if I disapproved of their belief, in such an obvious reality...however on this board religious people are suspected of being ignorant and illogical, and somehow misguided...things change...along the morality front.

Questionposter, I am afraid the only thing that makes sense is that the guy gets stuck in an infinite loop. The first thing the guy would experience is himself arriving in whatever form that would be from three seconds later, and then in three seconds he would go back and arrive and three seconds later he would go back and arrive...

Tri, So you are hypothosizing an inherent goodness, or conscience that can be, or is already the case in a person, that one can fall away from, or be guided away from, or be forced away from, or can find themselves lacking, when measured against? This may well be the case, and through recent insights I think it as well, but it's complicated. This moral guide, I think, is somewhat learned and not automatic. There is a certain underlying understanding that I possess, that I used to critique the Koran, as I read it. A connection I already possessed with God, or the universe, or MN, which I could use to measure the words of Mohammed against, and tell when he spoke for himself, and when he spoke for me, in reference to it. But how did I come to this understanding? I went to church and Sunday school, and listened to my teachers at regular school, and listened to my parents and friends, and followed the rules my society and those around me followed. I took philosophy courses as a young man, I discussed the world of science and the world of ideas and logic with others. I saw what I was in and of, and what other people's take on the situation was. I loved and lost, I loved and held on to, I raised two daughters, and taught them what I had learned, and how, in my estimation one should be toward the world, how one should and should not behave toward others, and when I was proud of them, and when I was embarrassed. Whether or not my children do exactly as I would do, or whether they do something because of me, or inspite of me, or on their own accord, or whether they choose according to their own conscience, or are guided by or influenced by other humans, other than me, there is still a component of one's conscience that is built by and for other people. Whether dead or alive, real or imagined, there is a component of conscience that is built from the world around us, that we feel responsible to. The parts of the world we want to please and have proud of us. Person place or thing, it, the conscience, I think is made from the world, and we wish to please it. And hope for, or expect reciprication. So, as human judgement is a central point in my consideration of the world, and my existence in it, I can not go my mine alone, but must consider other people's judgement as well. My conscience did not pop up fully formed at my birth. I had to have learned about the world, how to please it, and how to piss it off. How to fit with the world, and how to go against it. It might be the case that we each already know how to be good, but a large component of it, has to do with how other people think we are doing in this regard. You are guided a lot by Socrates and feel a certain rightness in doing as he would do, in terms of searching for truth and doing the right thing. He was put to death by those around him. Makes one wonder who exactly, what part of the world it was that guided Socrates. What was the basis upon which his conscience was built? Who was it, he sought to please, and who was it he sought to embarrass? Regards, TAR2 Not unrelated, is the consideration that Muslims seek to live as Muhammed would have. and Christians as Jesus would have, and Jews as Moses would have, and Buddists as Siddahtha would have. Tridimity as Socrates would have. And others as Dawkins or Einstein or Newton, or Plato would have. Perhaps our personalities are constructed somewhat like a meal at a chinese restaraunt. One component from Moses, one from Newton, one from Grandpa, one from Bruce Willis...and so on. And our conscience is composed of our internal conversations with the unseen others with which we converse. Whether God or man, it is our conversation with the world that we are of and in.

Tri, if a person is closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic, conceited or bullying So are these criteria against which an individual can measure themselves, and adjust their behavior to be less those things, or are these things unremovable characteristics? I can find in my own thinking and behavior elements of each of those undesireable characteristics or mind sets. I can also remember holding fast to certain ideas at earlier portions of my life, that I have changed my mind about, after certain insights or events. In some cases, I go by the general "feel" I get from the people around me, who bolster or disuade various considerations I might have. And as we as doing on this thread, I think people are influenced by the attitudes of those around. Sometimes this is assisted by laws and rules with punishment and such to influence behavior. Taxes that cause it to be better to do things one way, than the way you would have liked to, and such. In New Jersey we have a number of laws and rules that cause me to characterise the place as a "nanny state", where the individuals seem to be "not trusted" to use their own judgment, and must follow rules that are not deemed required in other locals. Can't jump off cliffs into public waters, can't pump gas, can't smoke in public spaces, or near public entry doors, and the like. There are more, I've gotten so use to it, I don't remember the examples. But for instance, reactionary behavior can cause things like 6 year olds getting removed from school for pointing their finger at someone, like a gun. Or a bus driver can get in trouble for yelling to much at a child to get them to behave on the bus. Bullying and hate crimes are no nos. Never quite understood how one decides whether or not hate was contributory to a crime. It seems to me that the crime itself would indicate a certain hatred, if not disregard for the victim. Regards, TAR

Tri, But, there is, I think, in everyone's mind, people that are real, and people that are hypothetical. People that are individuals that together make groups that are known and interacted with, and people that are more definite "thems" or third party individuals, without any real known and considered connection. My thinking on this is along the lines of personal knowledge of one individual, that you use to adjust your portrayal of the groups that they belong to. Like lets say for instance you have a certain image of all "bankers". How is such an image built, but with the personal knowledge you have of bankers you have run into, or heard about, or read about. There tends to be, in my experience a certain legacy that the actions, intents and behaviors of one individual in a group will cause one to extend the exhibited characteristics to others in that group. This may be fair or unfair, a well considered assumption, or a reckless lumping of people into a certain basket that they have not earned a position in. With eight or nine billion people, currently exercising their will, living and breathing, hating and loving, and engaged in all sorts of endevors, it is difficult NOT to do a bit of lumping into grossly inappropriate baskets. You're wrong if you simplify, and overwhelmed if you conscienciously consider each individual's particular mixture of personality, circumstances, abilities, goals, purposes and will. Such is the problem with "thinking" globally. You do not know near enough people, to make a proper judgement at that level. And "acting" globally is something that very few individuals, but kings and presidents, billionaires, movie stars, famous writers, and leaders in their fields of endeavor in science and industry and the arts, medicine and fashion and such, even have the power to do. Thus the only actual power that most everybody has, is to act locally. If this is done with a certain consideration of global issues, such as the environment, and political and religious and resource realities, then one can think globally and act locally. It seems very unrealistic to me to think locally, as in just considering your own judgement as complete and proper, and then act in a global fashion, as if it is your will that should be done. You have already grouped the world into those that are worthwhile and those who are not worth any consideration. There is a certain problem with this, in that you have no way of identifying, those that belong in the one basket or the other, from a 10,000 ft. in the air, vantage point. Regards, TAR2

Dimreepr and Tri, But the point, in reference to the thread, and the "cloud", and to personalities engaged in power wielding, is that face to face, one can properly gauge interpersonal trust, earn it or lose it, extend it or withhold it, open oneself up for potential harm, with the full capability of responding in kind to good or bad intentions. Interpersonal relations are not likely to be a one size fits all, rule based situation. You can have people you get along with, and people that you do not. People you know you can trust, and people you know you should not. People you like, people you tolerate, and people you have a problem with. In the cloud you do not know who is interested only in selling you something, or has some alterior motive to gain your focus, and who is interested in your welfare and opinion for some mutually beneficial purpose. In "real life", where the person is infront of you, or in your life on your streets, or even at the other end of the phone or letter or skype, it is a real person, with a mother and father, siblings, cousins, friends, neighbors, a job or school, organisations they are part of, purposes and goals, friends and enemies, and most importantly a NAME and address, and in possession of YOUR name and address. Any and all interactions between you, are real and irreversible. The other, is a complete, and real individual, which the two of you are aware of, and hence each is responsible to the other, for their behavior, in all its intricacies. Such, in terms of personality and interaction, is somewhat lost on the cloud. You become a number, and a type, with which someone can operate for their own reasons, without being obliged to you, to truly know and care about, for some sort of reciprical relationship. People have "stage names" when they converse on the internet, and when they don't, as on facebook, strangers can take snipits of your words or deeds and twist them anyway they want for their own purposes, without consulting you first, or opening themselves up, personally to your disapproval. Here, certain personality types, who might have certain ways of being toward others, when there is immediate reaction and consequences, can engage in fantasy behavior, or hold a image of the world and others in it, that does not correspond to actual people and consequences, and hence can engage in power plays, that are not the type of power plays they can manage at home, or at work, or in the street. Such behavior was evident to me in the conversation about the government shutdown between the conservatives and the liberals. Each was rather sure, that everybody else felt the way they did on the subject, and refused to make consessions to the other's real life condition, of sharing the same country and government, streets and fields, rivers and forests. My contention is that one must think globaly but act locally, and that the other way 'round does not work, is not realistic and is subject to fantasy and incorrect assumptions. Primarily because thinking locally but acting on a global basis, disregards the actual persons you are affecting by your actions, and assumes you have some sort of superiority of vision or insight, that is not possible for the rest of humanity to have. I think it instead true, that ALL humans have human judgement, and are fully capable of judging me, and my behavior, and I therefore am responsible to them, for my behavior, and likewise, they should care about how I feel toward their behavior. Regards, TAR

Tri, You seem to be arguing in favor of contributing to the welfare system, as if I am against contributing to the welfare system. I don't question a bit, the fact that one should help their neighbor, when in need. That is what good people do. And most people are of this sort. It is the forced altruism that is counter my sense of fairness and personal integrity and self worth, and the intrinsic value of compasion and sharing. It is the impersonal nature of the "system" that creates rules to which no one is accountable. Rules that no one takes responsibility for, and rules that make no sustainable human sense, as to why and for whom and by whom the system is meant to operate. It is the question of the "power" part of this threads investigation. We each give the system the "power" that it has. There is not a system without its contributors, and its maintainers, without those whose goals and purposes the system serves. The wealthy and the poor, both contribute to the system, it is not built or meant to serve the one at the expense of the other. A standard of laws build the framework in which everyone can operate, knowing what to expect from the other. In the U.S. and most other places, there is the enforcement of the concept of private property. A personal space of real estate and possesions that belong to the individual, and those that the individual includes in their feeling of self. I took a peice of pork off my daughter's plate last night and ate it, after seeing see was finished eating, and asking her if she was done with that. It was still her peice of pork, to eat or share, because it was on her plate. It is not up to anybody but me and her, to establish the rules by which that small peice of pork transfers from her possession to mine. Regards, TAR We had a discussion about locking doors, and trust last night at the event of my 60th birthday dinner, hosted by my wife, and attended by my eldest daughter, who lives at home, my father, my stepmom, my wife's cousin, and her husband. All in attendance would have no reason to lock anything up to protect it from being taken or abused by anybody else in attendance. But neighborhoods are on a level one step removed, where most people can be trusted, but a stranger, or a drugged teen, might not be considerate of ones personal property. The rules in rural areas, and suburbian areas and town areas and city areas, are different, as to when it is wise or foolish to trust too little or too much. And each individual has their own extension of trust in which they are comfortable. Some would rather live open to the world, as to not create a prison for themselves. Others would rather not give thieves and wrongdoers the opportunity to do harm.

Cladking, Well I suppose a way to check my idea is to see if there is any correlation between the areas of the brain that light up when one is formulating a plan, and the areas of the brain that light up when the predictive motor simulator is getting ready to fire a set of coordinated muscle movements. Interestingly enough there might also be a tie in with arc's idea of the concept of past/present/future, in that the predictive motor simulator is using learned combinations and timing from the past to generate a present firing of neurons, that will cause a future movement, once all the signals reach the appropriate muscles. Regards, TAR2 To say nothing of the fact that Kant felt we had two apriori intuitions. That of time. And that of space. Too-open-minded, You might look at the Wiki article on Kant's Categories. They have much to do with thought and language as they categorize, in general, everything that can be said about a thing. Plus, the most intelligent man I ever knew, a Prussian Philosophy professor (now deceased) once taught us that we can make no more than 7 qualitative distinctions at a time, and quantitative distinctions need to be considered over time, or counted sequentially.

Cladking, So is there a particular mutation you have in mind, that occurred 40 thousand years ago? Some new connection in the brain? Some mirror neurons in a different place, or used for a different purpose? The hijacking of some already useful function and mechanism to serve a slightly different purpose? My guess, or theory, is that somewhere along the line, we started using our predictive motor simulator, that allows the brain to practice motor neural sequences and combinations, before actually firing them to make a coordinated movement, for predicting and practicing potential actions we can cause to occur outside our neural system. As the TED talk suggested, a baby is somewhat taken by the fact that it can make a noise that brings objects it wants to touch to it, and even food directly into its mouth. Not too much of a stretch to consider experimenting with these different sounds, and learning which ones in which order and combination, get the world to respond in a pleasing fashion, and then remembering these particular combinations, learning these particular combinations, and attempting to sound them again, when the same need arises the next time. It is difficult for a parent to ignore a crying baby. They must need or want something. The baby must be unhappy with some aspect of their bodily situation, some gas, or hunger or cold or urge for human touch or frightened or surprised or has some situation it can not, on its own, within the reach of its motor neurons, resolve. Antelopes emerge from the womb, and in a very short time, stand in a wobbly fashion, and soon learn the motor neuron sequences required to move about the world, and go to food and water, and run from preditors...human babies have to call the world to them and train the local world to respond to their needs for a long time before they can pull themselves around and crawl to the pots and pans to hit with a spoon and make a sound. So what was the mutation? Something that retarded our motor neurons from cooridinating our muscles, in favor of coordinating with our parents muscles? Some brain development of our ability to converse with an unseen other, to hold memories of other people's emotions and thoughts, in our own brain? What was the mutation you have in mind, that occurred 40 thousand years ago? Regards, TAR How did Helen Keller's parents punish her? By rearranging the furniture. How many times is a botched attempt at personally manipulating the world to your ends, followed by the consideration of " Well, you could have asked!" And why is the pen mightier than the sword?

Cladking, What was the mutation that occurred 40 thousand years ago, to which you allude? My thinking is that there is some ability, in terms of symbolization, or memory, or sound manipulation, or focus, or something, that separates us from other apes in regards to the ability to share a "thought". Or to have a "thought" perhaps. Obviously, now, we have the ability to remember and manipulate the world, internally, without expending the energy to actually move and rearrange anything. We can practice arrangements until we find one that seems workable, given what we have already sensed and remembered as working, and then, after formulating this plan, attempt to execute it, solving the interim "problems" as they arise, but remembering the plan or goal and making the additional "efforts" required to reach such a goal. But what was the mutation? What biological mechanisms came together, were repurposed, to result in the ability to have a thought and manipulate the world to match it? What rudiments are there, from which higher level, human "thoughts" are constructed? Too-open-minded question is about the evolution of language. But I am thinking that the number of sounds, or the number of words is not so important as understanding the meaning behind the words, the focus on one aspect of reality, and the ability to transfer that focus into or from another human mind. All the permutations possible from that ability are evident, but what a French person does in this regard is not substantially different from what a Chinese person does. Its the thing we do, when we talk and write and listen and read, that is the something different from what apes do. What facility did we pick up 40 thousand years ago, inorder for us to have this thing? Regards, TAR2 Might it be something along the lines of Arc's idea that gave us the ability to symbolize and work with time, internally?

Tri, Well there are things a wealthy country can do, that a poorer country can't. This raises the question "is it OK to BE wealthy?" There are things I would like to do, that I can't because I have to work to pay the mortgage and the food bill, and the electricity and the cable and the insurance payments and the taxes on my property and such. If I were to forgo my way of life, I could perhaps feed a starving child and such, but then I would be working for them, and the question would be, who is then going to feed my daughters and pay for my room and board, if not me? I am somewhat against bringing everyone down to the minimal subsistence level, to bring strangers, up to it. After the typhoon in the Philipines many around the world, including me, came to the aid of those devestated. Afterwards, a barber who had lost his shop and belongings found a pair of sheers on the ground and cleaned them up and was giving haircuts for a charge. He said he would probably have enough money to reopen a shop, by the spring...through his efforts, providing a need for others, that wanted to look beautiful. He was asked by the NPR interviewer how he felt about people selling goods that they had looted. He said that people had to get by somehow...then he said "I suppose its not a good thing." Point being, that if people did not make effort to accumulate wealth, there would not be any. It is not an automatic thing, that people will have what they want or even have what they need, without a certain plan and effort to make it so. Like education, and work. Like following successful plans of individuals before. I have this thing against dependency on others. Not that other people are not to be depended on, but everybody is not entitled to other people's wealth, by any moral standard. Tithing is promoted in many religions, to give a tenth of your proceeds of endevors to the "needy", but I think that means the very young and infirmed and the aged and the crippled, I don't think that goes for healthy strong individuals that can do something for others, that others are willing to pay for. Comfort is not an automatic thing. Maybe for the child of a wealthy person, but not for most of the world, even in America, a wealthy nation, sloth creates issues. People that will buy drugs and iPads, before taking proper care of their children's needs, and so on, with the welfare check or the disability check. On your "do no harm" scale, does a person who gets a payment from the government which I pay taxes to, do me any harm? I was wondering this, when I took out loans with my daughter, for her college, when my wife and I made "too much" to qualify for any government assistance. If there is a giver to balance every taker, then things can work. But what happens if everyone assumes the taker role? It would not work. Would it? Regards, TAR

Tridimity. But we have to choose ourselves first. Just by taking a breath, we take oxygen from another and expell carbon dioxide, that warms contributes to global warming. Just by eating a young aspragrass shoot, we take away its ability to grow and go to seed and spread its form. Or by eating a fish or a chicken or a cow. Even eating fruit, the seed will not sit on ground and sprout in the spring, because it will wind up in a septic tank, or a sewage treatment plant. There is a certain selfishness required to live. And this I think is understood and required. Many years ago, I made the realization that reaching Nirvana was a completely selfish thing to do, that had little or nothing to do with the rest of reality. The monk on the hilltop joined with the All, only in spirit, only in mind, only in imagination. The All remains in its original position, of being "other" than the self. Now I am not suggesting that considering oneself to be part of the All is incorrect. Quite the contrary. It is already the case, evident just by taking a breath, eating and apple, and looking up at the stars. But since this is already the case, it is quite imaginary to consider it could be done in a "better" way, than is already the case. And this requires quite strongly the self, inorder to experience the rest. Without the self, you would not be conscious of any distinctions. But since there are distinctions between me, and you and them, then why fight it? It is impossible to see the beginning, or the end, we are well insulated in time and space from the all. It is too big to contain, and too intricate and tiny to know its every part and feature. Which leaves the most important consideration...the other humans, that have, that do, and that will experience the world from the same general vantage point that you and I as humans experience the world. From this particular place, at this particular time, at this particular scale, with the same senses, the same memories, the same desires, live 8 billion such souls. The stories and dreams are understandable by each. The things we have already accomplished and shared and maintained are already purposeful and real. There are already distinctions. There are already limited resources to find a way to husband and use, there are already diseases we have conquered and diseases left to conquer. There is already cities and open space that we have managed. There are alread dangerous wild animals that would eat us, that we have found ways to overpower and contain, together. There are fields of grain and rice where once stood forests and marshes. We have irrigated and built and caused pollution, and cleaned it up. But an American might argue: "Why should I pay the extra to save the environment a little bit more, when the developing countries like China, are polluting the air as we did here 50 years ago, without the scrubbers and regulations that cleaned up our air?" One cannot impose their will, good or bad will, on another, without taking some free will away from that other. So we have a few wars over stuff, and direction and ideas. I am not sure that this is not a perfectly good idea. When one group goes too far, and treads too heavily on the other's rights to self determination, then they have, well....gone to far, and need to be turned back, for the sake of the other's ability to experience this world on their own terms. Not the terms of another. Regards, TAR I would first like to see my way of life, my tribe, my children survive and be happy. Everybody else is a secondary concern. They are on their own, to make alliances with my tribe, or make war on my tribe, as they see fit.

Tridimity, So what do you figure we go by, when choosing between good and evil? If not each other. And specifically ones tribe. If you reach for a "higher" authority, you are likely to either grasp at nothing, or construct a ideal that you can hold on to. If you are going only by genes, then other humans is as far as you can reach. Any "greater" consideration would be questionable as to what you are basing your feeling of being "better" than a human, on. Regards, TAR2

Tridimity, Well, interesting you talk of good conscience, as if that is something available inherently. And also suggest that I am "smarter" than to become a henchmen, as if becoming a henchmen to a Mullah does not take capability. Not too long ago, in the U.S., within my lifetime, women had a different societal role, than they do today. The glass ceiling still exists in many ways, even though women burned their bras and demanded equal treatment in obtaining powerful positions, powerful positions are still predominately male. I have no doubt that one of the elements that defines these roles is the Bible, but there is the reality that males are on average bigger and stronger than females, and such a power structure is likely to naturally develop. Also, on the school yard, they did a study that found that girls tended to play cooperative games like jumprope and hopskotch, were there was no winners and losers, and boys tended to play team games where you chose up sides and have a set of rules within which you compete for the victory of you team. Also, no study done, but from my personal observation, women still tend to raise the babies, and men still tend to fight the wars. There might be a personality difference, and hence a capability difference, and hence an inherent difference between the team building success of a man and a women, of equal education and smarts. But the point is, that the society, at least American society, has changed over the last 60 years of my lifetime, but not completely changed, and the rules of society have to always stay consistent with the facts of life. And a man of good "conscience", would be defined, by any society, by the society itself. Best example might be Socrates. In retrospect to us in the West, now, he is a hero of "questioning" the status quo, but at the time, he was put to death because of it. And not too many lifetimes ago, we burned witches, here in the U.S. Nobody EXPECTS the Spanish inquisition. (Monty Python). So what "outside" standards, does an individual have, to establish conscience with? Many think God. Many don't. But I have a theory, that goes like this. There is not a god, as described in the Bible and the Koran, he just has not shown up as we inspect the sky and the heavens, we must be imagining him. But, we each know we are in and of something that has ultimate power over us, and this external world, is securely connected to us, in every way. We can not, but in our imaginations, or by death, get outside of it. It is rather our reality. There is nothing else but it, to know, and nothing else but it to love or hate. So, I have developed a theory that belief in god, is another way of saying that we believe in each other, and the Earth, and the heavens, and we therefore look to each other and the Earth and the heavens, to be our guide and judge. The "feeling" we have, that somebody or something else cares what we do and what we think, and that there is a difference between being good and being evil, comes from the fact that there actually IS the rest of the world, that is affected by our actions, and amongst the rest of the world, are creatures substantially the same as us, subject to the same reality, created by the same reality, and responsible to the same world. And THEY care about the world, as well. So what is a man of good conscience? A man conscious of the world around him, and responsive to its will, would be my guess. And as the world around me is of a certain nature and character, by virtue of the established order, and will of the electorate of the U.S. my responsiveness to the will of the world, would be by definition, different than that of a man of good conscience circling the stone, with his mates in Mecca. There is neither one of us following the will of a "different" god. My conscience is no better than his, and there is not a way to have a good conscience without consideration of the real world of things and people and established order around you. Regards, TAR2

Tridimity, Well, here is the rub. Afganistan has never, in modern times been conquered, because the tribal leaders just go with the strongest power around and continue being the tribal leaders. I was talking to a Pakistani taxi driver in Chicago who told me about Mullahs. They run their area and keep power by keeping their subjects poor and ignorant. If you stand up against them, or propose changes or a different philosophy, the Mullahs henchmen simply kill you. Not enough room there to make suggestions for improvement. While here in the U.S., although there is established power, in money and politics, and there is sure to be an in crowd and an out crowd, in terms of who is setting the agenda, there is a general attitude that the society is set-up to reward and protect individual effort, and a general attitude that people should and therefore do, strive for excellence in their choosen field of work, whether its the garbage men running to complete the route and get off the two lane highway during rush hour, or the college student striving for the A, or the real estate agent putting together that "killer" presentation. I do not fear my fellow man, here, as I might in Pakistan, or the Middle East. But if I was Pakistani, I would probably do my best to befriend the Mullah, and help him keep the peace. Who knows, I might even be one of the henchmen, silencing the trouble makers. After all, the Koran suggests that Allah does not like those who make mischief. If the Koran was the life guide I had memorized as a child in school, and the words I repeated to myself three times a day at prayer time, I would be likely to try and live the words. Regards, TAR2 And if I did find myself in a Genecidal Totalitarian state, I would probably wish the U.S. and her allies would come and straighten out the situation.

Tridimity, Needless suffering? I was thinking that humankind, together HAS eliviated a great deal of suffering. And concurently, there is always the next thing to do. There is a difference between making effort to maintain a warm and comfy bubble at the expense of others, and making effort to maintain a warm and comfy bubble that includes others. The angle I am approaching this from, currently in my muses, and particularly in this thread is trying to guage one's role, realistically, in maintaining things, that are already established and working, while keeping an eye out for personal improvement and positive engagement, where and when appropriate. In this, one of the points I am trying to make, or perhaps one of the things I am trying to determine, is how realistic is it, to attempt to extend your own bubble, past your reach. PARTICULARLY in today's current instant information, and GLOBAL reach environment of the internet. You are sitting there in Europe, affecting my thoughts and I am sitting here in the U.S. affecting yours. Our reach is Global but limited to a few score of other folk, and our power to pursuade is limited to the facts. What we might dream is possible and true may not fit the facts. And on the other hand, a workable idea will spread, just by being a workable idea. And this in turn, might affect your next action, and mine, and change reality in Europe and the U.S. I remember a simple corellary from my youth. I was in a cliche of boys my age, lets say 12-15 years old, and recall how easy it was to dictate what we were going to do next, by suggesting it and then doing it. I also remember going easily along with other peoples suggestions, as the burden of the choice, and the wondering what others might want to do, was lifted from me. There was often a simple and instant vote as several suggestions occurred in succession, and one suggester would switch to the "better" suggestion, until there was unanimity and then we would do the thing, whole heartedly, together. It would not have worked out too well, if everybody always went with the first suggestion, and did not voice their own desires, nor if one person always led, nor if each would stick unwaveringly to their personal preference. But as it was, we had a full and happy day, swimming, playing army in the woods, playing "girl hunt" when the lasses would have it, playing "over the top" on the beach, or Monopoly when it rained, or salamander hunting after a rain, or visiting and helping an older lady in a wheel chair, that lived alone, and would give us candy (that we would walk 6 miles thru the Glen to buy for her). My point is, that the world is not so bad, by virtue of all the things already established and maintained by human judgement and agreement. The glass is already 90 percent full, and only 10 percent empty. And it is not realistic to expect the entire world to agree on what to do next. It is better to reveal your desires, and then proceed with the best suggestions offered in unanimity. Regards, TAR2 It is more workable to attempt to fit the world, than to attempt to have the world, fit you. Using good judgement at every turn.

Kristalris, Afghanistan is a mess. It is not like here, and it is not like where you are. There are uneducated poor, there is the reality that the poppie crop is one major part of the economy, there are Mullahs, that seek to retain order by keeping there women powerless, and killing anyone that speaks against the order. I do not think I know near enough about it, to understand it, or to come up with a workable solution, different than the Taliban on the spot, have come up with. It is not the way of life I would prefer. I am rather accostom to my way of life. Built my own bubble, with my wife, under the protection and in aggreement with law abiding American Citizens. It is not likely that Taliban members would consider my way of life correct. They already think I am Satan. Which I am not. But it seems unlikey that they will drop their history and religion and agree to do it somebody else's way Middle East already has the Jews and the Muslims at odds. The Koran has already characterised the error of the Jews in making interest on loans, and the error of the Christians in worshipping Jesus, a simple messenger like Mohammed, as if he was Allah, who has no associates. The Koran denounced idol worshippers, Christians and Jews by name, as having fallen from the way. Moslems historically have destroyed the religious icons of peoples they have vanquished. Their dream is for all the world to be for Allah. 1/3 of the population of the world is Muslim. That means not Christian, not Jewish, not Buddist or Hindu, not Communist or Humanist, but Muslim. I can not fix that. I can not come up with a proper plan for peace and prosperity better than the U.S. constitution, where each is allowed to worship their own God, and follow the laws of nature and man, together. Pursue happiness. My story is different than that in India, or Afghanistan, or Japan, or even the Netherlands or Mexico. My story is diffent than that in the West Virgina Hills, or the Louisanna biyou, or the Slums of Philadelphia or New York, or Chicago or LA. People don't go by my rules. They don't behave as I would behave. They have their own story to live. I am a little concerned with World Government, and being controlled by the advice of a think tank, which does not know what is happening on the ground. Does not know the effects of the edicts they pronounce. It would appear to me that the haves would be the ones to dictate to the have nots. As it has always been. There is not a workable way, other than human aggreement on the rules, to have power at all. Look at the mess the internet has made of Syria. Half the people want the security of the King and the previous order, and the other half want something else, not completely defined and tried. We, as the West, can not inflict our way of life on others, though we have tried unsuccessfully to do so, by the British Carving up the middle East and creating the kingdoms. Its a hard choice. Do we want to be a have, or a have not. I would rather stay a have. I am not sure whose side I should be on in Syria. Peace and order, or death and displacement? Somebody is going to wind up winning. In each and every case. And there is alway going to be children that loose. I don't have a way to make the North Korean son a proper leader, by my standards, nor do I have a way to keep people in West Virginia from destroying their lives, with Meth. Their lives are not mine to live. It would be difficult to come up with a proper plan, as to how someone else should live their life, from the security of a board room, or a think tank. It is better to live your own life properly, and fix what you can, locally, than dream of a fix for the world. Regards, TAR2 Think Globally. Act Locally. The other way around does not work.