tar

Kristalris, Before 911 the world was on a path, IMO, toward reconciliation, and common understanding. Communication and the growth of internet conversations, was letting people get to know one another. Things were getting quite nice. As I stood on the Western shore of the Hudson that day, looking at the immense pillar of smoke eminating from where once stood two amazing, populated buildings, that not only symbolized world trade, but was the "World Trade Center", I knew there was evil in the world. I did not know who would do such a thing, but I knew they were my enemy. Opponents of my way of life, opponents of peace and brotherhood. Subsequent to the day, once we knew Bin Laden was the culprit, I made attempt to understand what possible thinking could create such evil stupidity, and read the Koran, twice, once for the jist and once for understanding, to see what misguided ideas, were at the core of such a major breech of human fellowship. Turns out Mohammed usurped the Power of Allah/MN and associated belief in Mohammed, with belief in Allah. If you live a proper life, consistent with insights given to Mohammed from Allah, by the Angel Gabriel, in a cave in the desert, then you will have satin couches, rivers of honey and a couple score of virgins in the afterlife. If you disbelieve in the messenger, then Allah will judge you lacking and you will spend eternity with your flesh being burned by boiling liquids. People, choosing pleasure over pain would rather that their immortal soul was comfortable. However, given the circumstances that reality is much more evident than fantasy, it is much better IMO to make THIS as pleasurable and pain-free as humanly possible, as human-kind has be attempting to do, with the sharing of technology and law and art and culture for 1000s of years. I do not think Allah/MN/the universe/Jesus/Moses/The Lord/Vishnu/The All would be at all disturbed if we sought happiness and peace and allowed others to do the same. I do however think it quite contrary to life, to pilot planes full of people, into amazing works of man. Thus a war on terror is subtantially a quest I am on, securely backing my Nation, and my Nation's allies in this endevor. In doing so, I am protecting my way of life, against those who would take it away. I will not sacrifice or denounce the completeness of vision, and the ability to execute of the Constitution of the United States, and the prosperous, peaceful, liberty loving Nation it has spawned, for an unworkable dream of some guy in a cave. Regards, TAR Tri, Although I will agree that critical thinking is superior to irrationality, and a good liberal arts education, giving one the ability to understand history and human nature, is superior to teaching people "what" to think, I think it of immense importance to consider that other people already want to be good, already know they are in and of an immense and wonderful universe, and already excersice human judgement, without being told. In this, it is important to me to stay away from ideas one might have, that would only be true, if everybody else knew your secret. The universe is not hiding from anybody. The world is already available to all. And we have already made some tremendous progress in being able to execute our plans. Regards, TAR2

Kristalris, "Organizations all across the board will have to make the same division." When I was out of work for 4mos I started and LLC in case I should come up with an "offering" to assist companies in solving their most intractable issues, using the talent and knowledge the company already had. What I soon realized, is that I had no credentials, no extraordinary knowledge, and no track history, with which to sell my insights about the value and power of human judgement. I think your statement above might suffer from a similar lack of workability. It has occurred to me, in reading several threads in the speculation section, and certain posts in other threads I have read and joined in this philosophy section, that a certain measure can be taken of the value of someone's "idea", by noticing how much the world would have to change, for the idea to work. Your statement, suggests that your idea will be valid and true and workable and beneficial, only if EVERYBODY sees it your way. Question is, can you make these required changes, and are they actually required changes for the people involved, or are they required changes inorder for the world to conform to your order. There is such a thing in current business strategy and measurement, as the Gartner Magic Quadrant. A four quadrant grid is drawn with the vertical axis being "ability to execute" and the horizontal axis being "completeness of vision". The companies that fall in the upper right quadrant are the leaders in the industry measured, an the company closest to the upper right is the best of the leader group. Such a measurement, can be taken of worldviews, and although your personality theory might be sort of halfway along the x axis, the fact that so much would have to change for it to progress up the y axis, indicates to me, that it is not very workable. If it does not fit the facts, already available, in terms of "ability to explain and understand real human situations" then your ability to execute the vision is not very high. I might place your theory to the bottom right of the bottom left quadrant. Interestingly enough this measurement, I have also made of atheists (which I am one) like Dawkins (which I am not one) who figure the world would be better off if people did not believe in God, in the face of about a 20 percent chance of executing the plan. He would be near the right hand vertical about 20 or 25 percent up. over in that bottom right quadrant. (Since most of the world DOES believe in God). Regards, TAR2 And such also is the fate of Tri's plan to teach everybody to be a critical thinker. Some, if not the most of the world, simply do not have her horsepower, in that area. Today it has been 50 years since Kennedy's assasination. I remember being in my 5th grade class, wondering why our flag was being lowered to half staff. A knock came to the door, the teacher went out in the hall, came back very shocked and saddened, told us the news and sent us to the gathering buses that would take us home to mourn and try to understand, along with the rest of the country watching 24hr no commercial interruption coverage of the ongoing events. On my drive into work I listened to a reporter recount a news broadcast he had made the next day where he had made the mistake of reading a Robert Frost (who was a personal friend of John Kennedy) poem, that Kennedy had sometimes closed speeches with the last stanza of. The reporter could not finish the reading, choked up and broke down and halted the broadcast. Tears were running down my cheeks. Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village, though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound's the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark, and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. Robert Frost

Tri, So, another aspect of this comes into focus. A particular individual, does not exist, or become capable, or have any kind of thought, or obtain any kind of influence or power over the world, without the world's input and permission. It is becoming obvious to me, in general, that some great amount of one's individual "thinking" is done in concert with the world around them. Take the empowerment of women, in a patriarchal society. Is this done by the internal power generation ability of the women in question alone, or is there general agreement that the society should empower women at the expense of the power of the patriarch? In an Amozon society, the women might be considered the central live giving power, and the man only kept around for the 15 minutes a year, he might be required to inseminate a women. In such a matriarchal society, the empowerment of a man, would be at the expense of the matriarch. So, in a democratic society, taken by the thought that each individual, regardless of their size or strength, phsyically or mentally, or resource or wealthwise, is equal to another in their right to self determination, some power has to change hands, with the agreement of the powerful. And each individual gives up some of their individual power for the benefit of everybody else, knowing that everybody else is giving up some of their power, for the individual. Thus compassion and understanding, exhibited by the powerful, should not be taken as weakness. Nor should the power of the powerful be considered the property of the inherently weak, by birthright. Any family, or group, or society has already come to a workable balance between individual and world. The individual is quite overmatched when put up, alone, against the world. No matter what basis you might use, to make the comparison. It is only in concert with the world, that any individual can think clearly, and only in concert with the world, that any individual can act. Regards, TAR

Tri, Thanks. Kristalris, I did not completely follow your percentage breakdowns. Your 80% in the Production area included the characteristic of high IQ. This counters the bell curve reality, that is part of my issue in figuring this thing out. Let's say the top 10% of the population are a standard deviation or two or more, to the right of average. This would not leave room for 80 percent of the population to be of high IQ. Especially since we already have defined, by the bell curve, that 68% are of average intelligence, being within a deviation of the norm. That leaves 16% to fall below and 16% to be above. I would imagine that these 16% would have representatives in all groups, of any personality types one could determine. My theory would say that introversion and extraversion are important components in unraveling personality traits, with somewhat interesting connections to who's rules you are likely to follow, and who you are likely to trust and who you are likely to turn to as a judge to please. As it is generally agreed that personality is basically developed by the age of two or three, it would probably be a good guess, that these decisions can not be made for a person, or imposed upon a person, or in any substantial way be taught to a person (as Tri was indicating should be attempted.) It would probably be a good guess, instead, that people, in general, are not likely to agree on a "best case" personality. (Unless of course, it's their personality that gets the A). Regards, TAR2 the knoty problem I have run into is in consideration of those 16% who are the most capable of leadership roles in areas which people in the 16% group would be the best able to "fullfill the role". Those the most capable have an extra burden of also having to be concurrently the most trustworthy. Or things can go badly. People NOT as capable might believe in, or trust this group, or rely on this group, too much and be open to manipulation and oppression, or trust them not enough and become paranoid, with conspiracy theories of manipulation and oppression. Then there is the unfortunate reality, that people in the "most capable" group are actually in a powerful position, which though most of the time is not taken advantage of, is, by its very nature, an advantageous positiion to be in, and might "look" like an "unfair" advantage is being taken by people in those positions...just because they are capable of manipulation and oppression, should that be their intent. And the most unfortunate reality that occasionally very capable people, turn against the world, and serve themselves, and actually engage in manipulation and oppression, as if such is their right, bestowed upon them, by their capability to do such. So I have not made much progress, untying this particular knot. It seems an "elite" group, has to occur, and their power is neither false, nor unfair, but this concurrently puts them in a minority that should not inflict their will upon the majority, if democracy and self determination are to be considered virtuous attributes of society and human existence.

petrushka.googol, Well, I think it has to do primarily with how language works. Then there are stories. Then there is printing. Now there is internet. If you want to better understand, for instance, what Kant thought, you can go to the library or book store, or find the book online and download it to a reader. Same with technical or scientific information. You can follow someone elses experience, relate it to your own, and hold to the "truth" you see, that they saw. Without distortion though, is probably not the best description of how ideas get passed along. Unworkable ideas, tend to get repaired over time. The story takes on new facets as weaknesses in the story get revealed, and replaced with stronger peices, or at least with peices that better fit the knowledge and condition of the current teller of the story. So what is language to begin with? A bunch of symbols that represent stuff in the real world, so we can talk to ourselves about the world, and talk to each other about it as well. We might each have our own dream language, with which we speak to ourselves in our sleep, but we have picked up on the societal, outwardly expressible languanges of those around us, that we use everyday to understand the intent of others and to express our own intent, to the world. And of course to question and answer and allign our own thinking with those around us. With the world around us. Then there are story tellers, that traveled from encampment or town to encampment or town, and brought news and stories from far away places, sharing the experiences and thoughts of diverse persons to the consciousness of others. And spinning tales. Sometimes exagerated, but usually with some grain of understandable truth, that could be applied to local reality. You will notice though, that people have different languages, and like to keep it that way, for communicating with their family and friends and local communities. Similarly people go by different stories, and teach their children, and those around them, workable lessons based upon them, and act in workable ways, that tend toward maintanence of the ideas behind the stories. And hence, probably with the internet, we are collectively working on a workable merger of quite disparate stories. Looking for the threads of reality and truth, with which to sculpt our next actions, and with which to teach our children how to act. And with which to judge our own behavior and intents, and the behaviour and intents of those around us. Regards, TAR2 P.S. Important to note, that Kant wrote in German. Someone reading his thoughts in German, will have a clearer understanding of his thoughts than someone reading a slightly distorted translation.

Mike Smith Cosmos, Your post reminded me of a thought I had a long time ago, about the "other" universe that may have been required for this one to have come from. My thought was, that perhaps this universe, while being the only current universe, was not as it used to be, while being a previous universe. It did, or does not matter substantially what it used to be, because it is not that way, anymore, and there is not a way to be that other way, any more. You can't get there, from here. Like you can not undo a done deed. But the thought was, that the current laws of physics, were, and are, the result of how the previous universe had played out, and in some way are "messages" from the former universe, or reminders of what used to be, with a new twist or addition, or element, or perhaps as you are thinking, a new initiative. I was thinking in terms of the nature of a black hole, that draws all matter and energy to it, until there is no distinction, just one point, like the start of this universe, which then procedes to be a universe with distinctions again, with lessons learned from the last time. With a "new" character, and new initiatives, that are not "from nothing" but are from the way it was before...with some "gifts" perhaps left by something previously aware of its condition. Sort of a universe evolution thought. Impossible really to track back to an actual start, it just always was something, just not this. Of course at the time, it was everthing. Regards, TAR

The Peon, Well, I am thinking sort of inside out and outside in on this. Trying to discern the dream from the reality, at the same time recongnizing the power of the dream in shaping the future. There are a lot of things that would have to be different, than they already are, in your dream. Not a bad thing to imagine your internal order shared with the world, but one thing I have figured out, in 60 years, is that the world is a big complicated place, and one man's joy is another man's sorrow. This is not liable to change...ever. Even within a single consciousness there is conflict. You can quit work and free yourself from your boss' rule, but then there are these hunger and cold things you have to deal with, when there is no paycheck. And interestingly enough, you brought up maintainance of the species, and running into aliens. What if we run into another species that ALSO wants to live forever...but at our expense? Plus, there is this other aspect of reality that I have noticed. In our dreams we can manipulate things without considering the consequences, not all the consequences, because we are just dreaming and can change the rules to fit our imagination. If we need some new technology, or the thing would only work if everything was different, then we just imagine everything gets magically, instantly different...which is not the way the world actually works. The world is ALREADY working and fits together flawlessly. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, every action in it has its causes and its effects. The whole universe is visable from here. But we can only actually reach about two or three feet out, at a time. Makes me think that one of the important aspects of life, is to struggle against death. To have the dream, and turn what of it you can into reality. To live, and make it possible for others to do the same and share the place. Its already an amazing place, that already works in quite the fitting fashion that it does. The sun already shines, the birds already sing, the stars already stretch forever in our skies. We are already in and of the thing. We are already a fitting pattern passed down to us from Lucy and her mate. We already belong, have already won the victory of life. Important I think to recognize, that the victory belongs to any and all that achieve it, and the place does not in general require that TAR rules be followed. It seems more workable that TAR should endeavor to continue to fit the place, than endeavor to make the place fit TAR. I still don't think death is OK, but I am thinking perhaps you can't have life, without it. Regards, TAR2 How much of the current universe, is The Peon responsible for? How much of the current universe is The Peon responsible to? Interesting questions, in that the answers would not subtantially change with immortality. We would still not know what is currently going on in the rest of the universe. There is this speed of light thing, that insulates us, from knowing everything at once. Ever.

The Peon, Hum. Consciousness till the end of the universe. Don't you think by then we would have figured a way to even avoid that? Perhaps its too big a leap to go from 120 years to eternity. Might aim for 200 years, or 600 years or something like that, first. I am 60, or real close anyway, and things I could do when I was 18, I can no longer do. Bad knees keep me from running and jumping, and I don't hear as well, or see as well as I could before. Plus, some of the impulses and drives I had at 18 are somewhat muted or "taken care of" already. I have two grown daughters and a wife. Looking forward to grand kids one day. But I am not so sure we are setup to look forward to great great great great great.....great grand kids. Plus, there is already a population problem we have been having for the last 50 years or so, and in places like China, normal "drives" are already dissuaded and rules put in place to have only one child and such. I am not thinking immortality will be achieved without concurrent problems and losses of some "human" attributes. For instance, it would no doubt take a lot of energy, and know how, and reliance on technology and such, which would probably be expensive, and not available to everyone. How then would we chose who gets to continue, and who has to die? What new memes would have to develop, and how much of our current biochemistry would be lost, in the transaction? And in a way, the consciousness of my maternal grandparents was embodied in my mom, and that of my paternal grandparents, embodied in my dad, and my parent's consciousness embodied in me. My dad is alive, my mom has passed away, but I still remember her, and have her as part of my consciousness, as if, in a way, she is continuing. Perhaps just the way we are doing it, is already a plan that will take us, and our consciousness into the future, past our deaths. Socrates is already immortal. The Pharos have their pyramids, still...Plus I still hate Bin Laden, even though he is dead. If we lived forever, would we carry grudges that long? And what if we planned the situation incompletely and left out some important component that we missed having? We would have to kick ourselves for 600 billion years or so, at least. Like what if you had to do without taste buds or something like that. Or sex? Might not be worth it. Living forever might not be a workable situation for 10 million consciousnesses. And what if you had to share a test tube with another consciouness you did not particularly care for? I think you might want to think this immortality thing through a little and see if its workable. It may be better to just imagine heaven or rejoining the force, or meeting the dog you put to sleep in a field on the other side of the rainbow bridge. Seems we might have some other issues to resolve, before we go after a permanent solution to this mortality thing. Regards, TAR2

GiantEvil, Thanks for the Wiki link. Correlates nicely with a "thought" I entertain, that ideas, and jokes and technology spread rather easily and quickly among the population, because they work. They "fit". Good ideas get immediately intergrated and improved upon and tried in different areas and contexts, and bad ideas, that don't work, get dismissed, or discarded, or put in the try, but don't take seriously (don;t expect it to work) pile. In relationship to this thread topic, I would have to suggest that the idea of death, does not work very well. You can't do much with the thought. It is completely unworkable. The memeoid or some such term was used in the article to describe someone whose whole being is consumed by a certain idea, with examples of suicide bombers and such, who have somehow convinced themselves that an unworkable idea, will work. I suppose we have all entertained such thoughts. There does not seem to be a workable plan for ones life and consciouness "after" one has neither. Except for the one thought that you are part of something which will continue regardless of your cessation. I suppose that is why we buy life insurance. 'cause we know already that there is life after death, just not our own life. This meme is workable, and serves to allow the species to survive, even in the face of the loss of a member. But it would not work at all, if the loss of a single member, was not mourned. Regards, TAR2 Death of a member remains, NOT OK. Except in certain "sacrifice for others", situations. I am reminded of a certain Jeremy Glick, a former member of my town, who, along with others brought the jet headed for a Washington target, down to its fiery demise in a PA field.

GiantEvil, The memetric component, (and I don't know what that is, but figure it must have something to do with a meme) is probably not, completely unbiological. Perhaps you can expand a bit on how you are using the term, or what it is we know about memes that I am ignorant of, but it seems to me that memes are part social, and part automatically understood ideas, generated by our common conditions, of having fairly identical setups of senses and brain folds and nerves and the like, as any other human born in lets say the last 4000 years had/has. That is, if you would list all the structures and organs and chemicals and nerves and parts of my brain/body/heart group, you could probably find the same list extant in any other male human that exists on the planet, except for someone with a birth "defect" of some sort, or someone that suffered some sort of accident or injury. For instance, I am rather attracted to the female form. I don't think I had to be taught this. It pleases me, like there is this little pattern imprinted in my brain, that when matched, I smile. Similarly if you are around someone who learns of the death of a loved one, you can feel it, like it was you that just heard. Such a thing happened to me on 9/11. I was at a ferry terminal on the Jersey side, and a young lady was on her cell and began to sob. The tears welled up in my eyes quite immediately and uncontrolably, and looking around, I found I was absolutely not the only one who felt her loss. It seems to me that we communicate something important with tears. I don't think it would be useful in anyway to dull this particular sense. Again, I think it probably appropriate to mourn a loss. Regards, TAR P.S. I gave up drinking while in Germany in 1980. I can name the drinks I have had since, and count them on one hand. Other than nicotine and caffine, I take no drugs. How the heck am I suppose to deal with horrible or powerful stuff. If not with tears. Or laughter.

Tri, Then again it might be alright to live and feel a little bit concerned about losing life and consciousness. If you accept the inevitability of death, and consider it an unavoidable "part of life", it somewhat depreciates the current conditions importance. Plus, for the actual individual that dies, you can hardly call the absence of life, "part of life". Not much life goes on, after one dies. In my college years, I had a girlfriend for a few months, whose sister wanted to commit suicide, and I sat with her all night and talked her out of it. It seemed to me then, and seems to me now, that dying will absolutely NOT make things better for YOU. And as I was able to also pursuade the young lady in question about, it would certainly make things a lot worse for her family and friends. And me. Over the years since, I have formulated a theory about suicide, where I think people who consider suicide have lost some sort of control over their lives that they wish to regain, and somehow believe that taking control of their own death will somehow allow them to win back control. This is, in my estimation completely without basis. You can win nothing or lose nothing or have any kind of awareness of the new situation AFTER you are dead. Your say in the matter is quite no longer the question, once you cease living. Any control you might have hoped to gain, is completely gone. Therefore, at the point of death, your only positive contibution to life in general, would be to empower the living in some manner. Since you can do more about that alive than dead, the empowerment choice, is obviously to remain alive. There is no way you're going to feel better about the situation, if you have no senses left, and no heart/brain/body to feel and know the world with. But this all goes to considering life a victory already, and considering death a loss of what you had. And in this take, death is NOT Ok, and should be avoided. The buddist in the clip suggested that one should be mindful of life. Certainly so. To consider it "no big loss" should it end, would in my mind be saying you are already dead, or have already surrendered to death, way before the need to do so, has arrived. I can say, at the moment, that somehow I feel OK with the idea of death, and I would like to be able to say that I can look my daughters in the eye, when the time comes and assure them that "it's OK". But it's really not OK. Not OK at all. Just inevitable. Regards, TAR2

Tri, Oh, OK, but that doesn't make death OK. I still think it rather inappropriate to lose the only thing you've got. Regards, TAR2

Tri, "In almost all cases, the death of the individual will have no impact on the physical existence of things they love." I think this is a false statement. Consider the impact on an individual, when someone they love "chooses" to remove themselves from the situation. Not suicide, but simply leaving. When we love something, when we include something in our feeling of self, that thing has our attention, that thing has our care, that thing has our protection. When we die EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY that we are making effort to sustain must continue without our support, without our efforts, without our thoughts, without our love. Its a loss, in the real physical world when somebody dies, because everything they love now must continue, without that love and attention, without those efforts. Consider leaders who build and maintain enterprises through their insights and efforts. When they go, the whole enterprise is without that guidance. The character of the whole enterprise changes. The loss of the leader is a real loss. It affects reality. The hole will be filled by something or someone, but it will not be the same. A loss is a loss and people grieve for this reason. They are not being silly to recognize the loss. Its OK to mourn. I think we, in any society have already addressed these issues appropriately, we let others mourn and we say "sorry for your loss", because we are sorry. For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for thee. Regards, TAR2 Yesterday was Veteran's day here in the U.S. I was recognized, my service and sacrifice was recognized. I recognized my Father's service and sacrifice. We made a difference in this world. My father fought and was wounded in the battle of the bulge and Hitler was defeated. I served in peacetime Germany protecting W. Germany from the threat of soviet tank invasion, and the wall did come down. I was at Lanstul welcoming back our hostages from Iran. Today the Pacific Command is rushing to the assistance of the people devasted in the Phillipines by the typhoon. If there were not people protecting other people, people would not be protected.

Turniox2, Well, I don't know if this will help you, but it has helped me, in terms of starting with a archetype from which one can theoretically imagine the rest developing. I was reading several books on QED and such. Studying physics, as iNow suggests, and came up with this thought. Suppose you are an electron, and all you want to do is lose your energy, emit a photon, and relax to a rest state...but you can't because every other electron in the universe is attempting the same trick, and you keep getting hit by some photon, that some other electron has rid itself of. Regards, TAR2 I have not yet described exactly, the route from that thought, to the development of the peanut butter cup, but evidently, there is one.

Ophiolite, The joke circulating here in America whilst building a coilition to fight Saddam upon his invasion of Kuwait, was: "taking the French with you to war is like taking a violin on a deer hunt." I don't dislike the French, but at the time, it seemed all too true, and rather funny to me. I of course would rather have the French on my side, than against me. Their revolution against their monarchy, was made of the same cloth as America's revolution against the British. Yet I do not dislike the Queen of England. She took the Throne around the year of my birth. My whole life, We are fighting the same fight, against common enemies. I work for a Japanese company, and my country and theirs was once at war. My father was wounded by a German machine gun in WWII, and I spent two years of my life protecting W. Germany against the threat of Russian invasion, and the wall did come down. Socrates held fast to his own beliefs and people that knew him well knew his capability and trustworthness, but the rest of his society was not so impressed, and he was sentenced by them to death. What has this got to do with arrogance and Genius? Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. I am tying to figure something out for myself concerning these issues, and the responsibilities I have to the world and the responsibilies the world has to me. I find talking about it lets me see more clearly where the responsibilities lay. I figure its OK for others to figure it out concurrently. Arrogant perhaps to make it about me. But what if its about us? Then we SHOULD be figuring it out together. And likewise recognize, that others have been on the same case, for quite a long while now. There is most probably a significant amount of baby to NOT throw out, with the bathwater. The English, The Americans and the French, collectively have accomplished some rather significant advancements and achievments in every area of human endeavor. Arrogant no doubt. Genius no doubt. Capable and trustworthy we remain, dispite the dark grey color of our collective bathwater. I would rather the Queen of England tell me what to do, than a Mullah in Pakistan. Regards, TAR

Eat your own cooking. Best way to find out if your food is good. Say, did you see that evil genius, who has designed an impossible to defeat computer attack. He (or she, but probably a he) hides his program in a pdf or executable file in a false shipping invoice or some other normal looking communication, that looks right, but when you open the attachment, his program is in your computer, and proceeds to search out all your files, all your important stuff, all your pictures and spreadsheets and documents, an ENCRYPTs them with a military grade, unbreakable encryption. Not even the best there is can unencrypt, without the key. The key is held for ransom on the evil genius' server, and a pop-up appears on your computer showing a 72 hour countdown, and if you don't pay 300 dollars in bitcoin, at the end of the countdown the key in the evil genius' server, will be deleted. No way at that point to EVER unencrypt your valuble files. The only defense against this attack, to insulate your files from this bastard, is to back-up everything you care about, and disconnect the media from any and all connections to any computers. Hopefully some genius on our side will design a way to trap and identify the arrogant bastard, and bring him to justice. This particular criminal mind has taken his local idea and inappropriately enforced it on the world, and thereby divorced himself from the world. He is an anti-social criminal, that by his global act, based on a local idea, has disrupted and destroyed for personnal gain, and has achieved power over us all...for what? So we all need to distrust each other? Let's just find the bastard and disconnect him, from the internet.

The best test of one's ideas, is to make them work, right infront of you. If they don't work in the lab, they are not going to work anywhere else. So yes, don't think, do.

DevilSolution, I like your breakdown, and see your points. Interesting is the positive attributes of arrogance or "holding to a belief" when the belief is useful to oneself or others. In this, said belief may or may not be ultimately "true", but if it didn't work toward some aim or goal, if it didn't work in some way that was true and fit reality, it would not be used. It would not be held to. In this, nobody would be holding on to a belief, if it did not get some job or another done. Consider the workability of these two statements, and tell me which is more true, which fits reality better, which is the most arrogant and which is the most intelligent. Think globally, act locally. Think locally, act globally. In terms of the next act you should make, as an intelligent, non-arrogant realistic, useful, belief holder. Regards, TAR2 And consider how global terrorist acts, and hegemony, both fall into the unuseful, arrogant choice of letting your personal beliefs, your local thoughts, affect the world, inappropriately. Much better in my mind to think about the globe and act in the local ways that work, that fit with the world. Keeps one from letting their unworkable dreamworld loose on reality. If it doesn't work for you, and your family and your friends, and your town, and your company and your school, and your neighborhood, it is not going to work for somebody else's. On another thread, a poster was listing all the things that would need to be different with the world, for his idea to work. This should be a strong indicator of arrogance, and lack of intelligence. An indication of a thinking, very local in nature, and a desire to change the world to fit the impossible belief. Regards, TAR2 Personal integrity remains the only defense against the ravages of the world. (From John Dos Passos "the only defense against the ravages of the 20th century is personal integrity.")

DevilSolution, Good point. The old frontal lobatomy used to be used to make people "happier". Ignorance is Bliss, and Knowledge is Power. So what's a fellow (or gal) to do? Accept one and you loose the other. The middle way, seems the only recourse. Don't trade either in, for the other. Go for both in the workable ways you and the people around you, can arrange and manage. And I suppose living in a way that maximizes everybody's chances of achieving their own desired balance, would be the intelligent choice, that would make everybody happy. Regards, TAR2

Tri, Ultimately transitory, indeed. But my point was, that happiness is not a lonely momentary event. It is a thing taken in context. And the context of any human on Earth is much much greater than a particular synapse in a particular brain. You now know about the water hole in Somallia. Try explaining that with only actual synapse firings, without an actual watering hole in Somalia. The thread question is whether you would rather be intelligent or happy, as if you could pick between them. I don't think you can. They are intertwined on so many levels, reliant on the other in so many ways, that the question is mute. Regards, TAR2 there are over 8 billion human brains currently operating on this planet, and many more that operated passed away in a transitory manner and we STILL care about the paticular thoughts of Socrates, that become our own thoughts Evolution, in the gene development sense is no doubt still occuring in the human race, but its a might slow process, in relationship to the conscious human development that has gone on in the last 4000 years. Human ability to tell stories, and write them down, and share their experiences and studies and works with all alive while they are, and all that will live later, has placed human evolution on a different kind of track, then say Oak tree evolution. In fact we might even be able to meddle a bit in Oak tree evolution, with selective grafting and bioengineering of an Oak tree's genes. Years ago, back in the 7th decade of the last century, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Star Ledger, voicing my concern about recombinant DNA experiments. That the results of such experimentation should be handled with care, and destoyed lest some "unnaturally evolved" life form get loose. I would be "happier" if people respected the complex, evolved, working, "fitting" nature of the life forms already on this planet. We already fit the place, exactly. Messing around with such complexity, without a complete understanding of not only its internal makeup, but its place and part in the biomass that is our birthplace and home, here on Earth, carries with it a certain danger of unintended consequences. We, are not yet as smart as the genes that replicate us. Not nearly. We don't even know what junk DNA is there for. We even have the audacity to call it junk. If it took the universe 13.6 billion years, to come up with us. What possible chance is there that we could improve upon the situation, and make a "better" human that fits more securely with the Earth, than the model we currently are? If we could pick happiness or intelligence, what possible chance does that have, of working out, in the long run?

Strange, Well, I think you just proved my point. A super nova, within the Milky Way could have happened 10 years ago 100 years ago, yesterday, or tomorrow, and we might not see any of them for 50 thousand years. The Milky Way is a big place and you have mentally considered it one thing that you can comprehend at once. Regards, TAR2

Tri, "I will agree that happiness, according to your intended definition of happiness (one that I would broadly agree with), is different to drug addiction. However some of the same neurophysiological events occur when a person is experiencing a drug hit versus a modicum of regular happiness – the main difference is that the former does not last very long because it has no solid foundation, whereas the latter is usually grounded in (as you mention) self-esteem, self-love and various long-term reward mechanisms that result from obeying the evolutionarily programmed ‘approved codes of behaviour’ for gene propagation." Well, you bring up the considerations of contentment, or longer range happiness, or happiness in the bank, so to speak. Here intelligence is required, to make the plan, to set things up in a sustainable fashion. To excercise consciously, some delayed gratification. Here seeking momentary joy or pleasure, might hurt the long range prospects. If you were just happy, with no intelligence, tomorrow might find you hungry, cold and lonely, in which case happiness would no longer be the state you were in. And if you did plan with consideration of your future happiness, and the happiness of others, this would take some intelligence, which would indicate yet another way that intelligence is required for happiness, and you can't really have one, without the other. A beaver or a squirrel might struggle and work to make a pond or a store of accorns. An ant or a bee might endeavor to feed the brood with crumbs and honey, with some indication that they are preparing for future happiness, for future life, for the continuance of their own survival and concurrent happiness, as well as for the happiness and survival of others of their kind. So happiness, is not just the chemical present at a particular synapse. And intelligence is not just what happens in a human brain. Humans I think are similar to other mammals in the awareness of other's of their species, and a caring for them. That their own happiness, and the happiness of their mates and children and extended family are one in the same. And the collective intelligence of the group is as important as the cleverness of an individual. My boss came back from a photo safari in Somalia with several stories, but one particularly suited for this drift. Elephants return to the site of the death of one of their own, and cry in rememberance of the loss. Regards, TAR2 Can't you, even as a human, identify with that? Make you a little sad. Make you incensed when the next story is of the poisioning of a water hole that killed a herd of elephants, and the scavengers that ate their carcasses...just for the ivory. Makes you look at ivory ornaments with a little disdain, and makes you very unhappy with the men that carried out the act? Intellgent men. Happy men with wealth...but dispised men, in the eyes of everybody else.

Rit, and TurionX2, Can we throw in another consideration, that of one's social status? Let's say for instance that everybody, whether they like to admit it or not, is not self sufficient, and requires some form of acknowledgement from outside their body/brain/heart group. Even the complete loner, probably has some sort of agreement with an imaginary friend, or a dead relative, or some unseen other or another to make judgement calls, as to whether goals and purposes are being met or not. While this might be considered by another, to be happening solely in the mind of the imaginer, the imaginer has imagined a connection or responsibility to others, even if it is just the ball with the face on it that Tom Hanks had to talk to on the island. Part of happiness is the acceptance or positive feelings that others might have of you, or have toward you. This might be more important to some than others, or one might have a select group or individual whose praise they crave, or one might just imagine that other people are pleased by them, but I think it an important consideration. In this light, there might be a conditon where other people's happiness, caused by the individual's words or deeds, bring happiness to the individual. Here intelligence might be required to figure out how to bring the other to have such an opinion of you, but even sacrifice on your part of your own immediate happiness to gain this opinion, would STILL be an effort on your part to be happy with the other's opinion of you. Maybe. Heard about a study the other day, where they found that dogs wag their tails to the rightish when happy to see their masters and such, or are feeling positive and safe in a situation, and wag their tails leftish, when they are apprehensive or scared and such. They also studied the behavior and heartrate of nearby dogs whose heartrate and behavior was influenced by which way the first studied dog was wagging its tail. They picked up on the message. They knew how the other dog was feeling about the situation. I have little doubt that we as human's don't pick up on how others are feeling. And I find it hard to believe that anyone could be happy, when all around them are sad. Otherwise, we would never hear someone say "Don't cry, you are making me sad." or "thank you, you made my day". I think part of our happiness account is held in others. Regards, TAR2

iNow, "A "no-brainer" how, TAR? Different people will choose different answers to this question and both opinions are equally valid, yet implicit in your comment here is the suggestion that there is only one right answer available. Can you explain your meaning?" It was a double or triple meaning joke. My muses, influenced substantially by your "Religion hijacks neurocortical mechanisms" thread are leading me to believe that we must be fueled by some very basic principles, that start with simple drives, simple question/answer principles that build into the complex ideas of purpose and will, victory and defeat, power and oppression, love and hate, progress and self-destruction. The desire to love the world and make it right, and the inability to actually enforce ones internal order on the external world to the intended extent...and a whole bunch of other human considerations. The "no brainer" joke was basically saying that if we didn't have a brain, we wouldn't be in this position of experiencing happiness (the endorphins or whatever), because the rewards we get, for finding the answer is probably why we search for them. We would have no need to find answers, if finding the answer did not make us feel good. If finding food did not answer hunger, we would not look for it. We wouldn't move. We would sit still and expire. So my explanation for intelligence's role in evolution is bound tightly to reward and punishment, having a way to eliviate the bad feelings of hunger, pain, loneliness, fear, and such, and being "happy" when you eliviate those states. An internal drive to answer those questions that fits better and better with the ability of the organism to survive and pass on its pattern as the pattern works better and better at fitting with its environment. Things "want" to live. If they are alive. And the alive things have found a way to answer all the questions they have to answer inorder to exist. Built into this scheme, in the case of the human, is our ability to build an analog model of the outside world and navagate that world imaginarily, with little energy expenditure, searching out the correct combination of motor neuron fireings, before we actually fire the neurons to move our muscles toward our goal. (as evidenced by our predictive motor circuitry). But why would we scratch, without an itch? Why would we eat without hunger? If answering these questions was not pleasurable, if we did not get a reward for eliviating discomfort? If we did not have a desire to "make it right", to win a victory, to complete something, to answer a question? The answer is we would rather be happy, the question is how best to achieve that for the most, without raising unanswerable questions for others. "no brainer" was a joke. We simply cannot be alive and human, without one. And we, of course, want to be happy, that's the motive force. Regards, TAR2

I have a problem trying to consider a question such as "how many supernovas does the Milky Way, have in a decade. How can a thing so big as a galaxy, where it takes light itself 100 thousand years to get from one end to another, do ANYTHING at once?