tar

take the thought in TAR's head of the moon, for instance If there is "something" that is the same after running it through your understanding, and running it through my understanding...of what is figurative and what is literal...that same thing must be both literally and figuratively true. That thing which is the same exists both in your model of the world, and in the world. It must be true. It must "really" exist. I am trying to suggest that there is a "god's" eye perspective that we take, automatically, to understand reality. And we can take it, as soon as we can "put ourselves in someone else's shoes". A third perspective we can take, once we realize our own perspective, is not the only one, and one can take another's perspective, and that there indeed is yet this "other" way to look at it when the first person and the second person view, are taken together. A third person view. Whether this third person view is taken literally or figuratively may be part of the difference between a scientific view and a religious view. Yet the view itself is true, if one has it. Regardless of which parts of it are deemed to be literal, or which parts of it are deemed to be figuative...by another...who may have, or who must have, a "different" first person view to begin with. (but importantly a view of the "same" reality, using the "same" basic "human" equipment) Regards, TAR2

If you take a thing literally, and explain it figuratively. And you take a thing figuratively and explain it literally. And you look at both of your explanations and find a thing that is the same from both perspectives, don't you then "know" that thing that is the same? And would that thing, not have to be true?

Owl, If you know already, that philosophy has not yet found the grounds upon which to know "the thing in itself", and science claims only to know how it appears to behave in some particular ways, "as if" it follows nicely some relational "ideas" or maths, with which one can "predict" its behavior in a consistent fashion, given certain starting relationships...why would you want or expect science to look for or find out what the thing in itself was? Seems almost like you wish to set a trap, which you will spring, once somebody tries to step in it. Nobody has stepped into it. Science is not even attempting to go where it can not possibly go. Its just trying to get as far as it possibly can. Regards, TAR2 One considered, empirically tested and "verified", step at a time. Adding up to quite a nice walk in the park. We know more about what the park looks like than when we started...what is it?...looks like a park...acts like a park...must be a park. Oh, I'm sorry. ydoaPs just quacked that, didn't he?

General comment here. I tend to agree more with Phi for All, than with PeterJ on some grounds, and more with PeterJ than Phi for All on others. Where I would disagree with anybody is when they would tell ME I have NO grounds, to believe what I believe. To which I would say...well I absolutely do. Without ground there is no place to anchor, and I prefer to be anchored, or at least HAVE an anchor to raise or drop as I require. And some ground to which the anchor will hold, should I require it to hold fast. To the question of what I believe, what you believe and what they believe. I think it may have something to do with shared "grounds" when we use the term we. And the "they" is used when the "we" grounds are challenged or denied. And the "I" grounds are the "real" "true" grounds...of course. Just a thought. Regards, TAR2 P.S. And ground is ground even if it is made of mostly tiny bits of stuff spaced way apart, and located on a planet reeling through space. Its still ground to stand on. Or if you are floating, ground to anchor into. Or if you are flying, ground upon which to land. There is no place like home.

TaoRich, I agree that language can "influence" how and what we think, but I am on a quest for the "meaning" behind our language, and I do not think that the representations "determine" the meaning per se, but more that the language expresses or holds, or represents the meaning to the language user(s). However, if we are just talking about the structure and form and the language's capabilities to accurately express certain meanings better than others, this is probably true, and could be true, even if language did not "determine" thought. One example might be the symbols and syntax of math. They can do a more efficient job often, than english words and you might be able to hold a complicated equation "better" in your mind and manipulate the relationships between "ideas" when they are placed in this "mathematical language" than you could if you were trying to "juggle" the more cumbersome, larger, "thoughts" in which your native tounge might express the meanings you are comparing and manipulating, and attempting to find the "working" relationships between. But also good to note, speaking of math, that we stipulate at the beginning what each symbol is going to be standing for. E=MC2 only means what it means if you know the E means energy(in the proper SI units), M means Mass (in the proper SI units) and C means the speed of light (in the proper SI units). And there is a whole lot of meaning, behind each of those terms. Meaning only really understood by physicists or students of physics who know the conventions and the bodies of work and study and experimentation, behind each of the terms. If we stipulated that E was elephant and M was manure(in the proper poop units) and C was the universal Circus factor, we would be talking about something else. The same equation would have a different meaning and it would depend somewhat on the work of the people who discovered and defined the universal Circus factor, as to what the exact meaning was. Regards, TAR2 Hey, I said all that, without once touching my tounge to either the keyboard or the screen! Schrödinger's hat, I quote your whole post for quick reference to see how it "assists" or "hinders" a guess about language I am developing. Here is the reasoning behind the guess, and the guess. We as humans have language ability, and thought/reasoning ability that seems rather more powerful and useful than that of other animals on the planet. However, we evolved under the same conditions and in concert with other species, and have many of the same structural and functional attributes of other mammals and a whole lot of similarities of this nature with our "close" relatives like the chimps and apes. So what evolutionary equipment could we have "repurposed" or selectively "improved upon" from which such as language and thought would follow? My guess is our "predictive motor simulator". The same aparatus we use to learn about and control our own muscle movements, used to learn about and control the world outside our nervous system, by having neural signal patterns "stand for" something "outside" the nervous system. The outside world "already" present in representational form through the input from our senses, among the folds and firings of our brain, this is not an "impossible" leap. Read your mathematical thoughts again with particular attention to the references to sense and motor control, and, if you would, let me know if you think my guess has any grounds. Regards, TAR2

Inow, I will go along with qijino1236 on the panthoughtism bus. While it is good to know that matter is made up of tiny atoms which are made up of mostly space, inside them, and between them, you can still pick up a cup of coffee, without all the space in your fingers passing through all the space in the cup, like a puff of smoke through the air. There is "something more" involved. And to the "religion hijacks" thread, this "something more" that qijino1236 is talking about is the "same" "something more" that I as a human am capable of having as an idea, that you or qijino1236 or anybody else is capable of having, if you think of it as a "pure" idea, without content. What content we "put" into that "something more" idea, (and where we "get" that content) and where our personal lines are drawn between something and something more, is probably very much a good thing to talk about when talking about science and religion and personality and truth, and insight, and authority, and a whole host of "human" concerns. Especially since where we drawn the line, and what "things" and "nature of things" are "known" and "to be known", by one individual are not the same sets of things in the case of "another" individual. That we can have such an "idea" seems to be rather automatic. Comes with the equipment so to speak. And probably has everything to do with evolution and how in general, our bodies and hearts and brains are constructed and function, in and of the reality we seek to understand. Were science is very useful is in drawing a "collective" line, between what "we" know and what falls into the "something else" category. But it is important to note that even in science there are certain things one takes on the word of someone else, and possibly misunderstands (pulls or pushes certain things across the line, one way or the other) based on a misconception or lack of knowledge of where exactly the consensus lines are drawn, and that there almost certainly is not an exact match between one mind and another. We all know "different" things. As a quick example, my route to work, is not your route to work. You and I both know there are other routes to work than our own, but we do not know all of them, and we know the specifics of only a small portion. I know to get to work I back out to the north, so I can go south and follow certain roads that lead me to work. There are any number of different routes I have taken, depending on conditions, but there is the "best" route. These specifics and even the whole operation are not going to get YOU to work. Only me. You have no reason to wind up at my desk. Regards, TAR2

qijino1236, and Inow, Don't know how to explain my position when I agree with both of you on most of what you said, yet you two seem to have some things to iron out between your views. (I am respondng only after reading up to post#20. qijino1236, I think you are missing something, to both talk about the wonders of "human" culture AND consider one should not take one's species over another. My personal determination is that us being human has EVERYTHING to do with who we are. I would protect your life before I would protect the life of another species. Inow, I was with you mostly, but one point I do not see. You talk about how slim our chances of being conscious humans are. I would say the chances are much better than that. I would put them at around 100%. 'Cause here we are. Regards, TAR you can talk about the chances of a heads or tails before a flip of a coin. But to flip a coin you need a coin and a flipper. What are the chances of having a coin and a flipper? Sort of have to be around 100% chance of that. sort of like standing at a bus stop in a downpour, asking the guy next to you what he thinks the chance of precipitation today might be 'think it's pretty much of a sure thing, buddy" What are the chances of me being born in Allentown PA? I would think it would have mostly to do with where my mother was at the time. And if she was in Allentown PA, I would say pretty darn close to 100% chance. Or to put it another way. Are you proposing that there is "another" history of the universe that leads up to here and now? That we can compare THIS one to?

No, I think science IS consensus. Regards, TAR2 peer review and independently verifiable/falsifiable, and checked and rechecked and all that...is a group effort and mountains of empirical evidence...that we AGREE tells us something true about the universe

So, the question is, in your own first person, what is it that you understand, that I don't see, that they are getting wrong? This was and is a thing I am "investigating" and it is interesting how Phi and PeterJ are sort of answering me, without trying. Mooey, I agree that those avenues, neurology, biolology, evolution, psychology and probably some other "sciences" that deal with the human do indeed offer possible approaches to understanding religion from an actual, verifiable, or falsifiable perspective. This is not to take away from our personal connection and relationship with that which is beyond our understanding or that which is absolute or that which is greater than us or whatever Reality/theory/God turns out to be...but to understand how it is such in ways that are sensible to all. Regards, TAR2 Can't tell why I think this is important to this question, but do you remember a few years back a thread discussing the "what color is my hat" riddles? In one of the riddles, the answer was only deduced "after" the realization that nobody could determine the color of their own hat.

Just figuring your theory to possibly being a good analogy to human understanding, but not nescessarily an accurate description of the thing as it is.

Moontanman, "At one time we knew the earth was a flat disc covered by a crystal dome with water above the dome and below the earth..... That was a religious fact...." At one time man considered all the universe homogenous and that the universe would look the same to any observer anywhere and that the "Earthly laws of physics" were the same everywhere and always in the universe, and that the universe begat itself from a single point of nothingness.....These where religious facts.... Regards, TAR2 At least it was the best explanation we had at the time.

"What?... You give me a choice between "(my) idea" and "the reality of the situation?" Tough choice! Like... "Have you stopped beating your wife?"" Owl, You made me laugh out loud. I gave you a point. And thanks for the rest of the post. I am looking at it this way. There is this reality that we are in and of. It is a given. We all feel that it is real, so we are all realists. We all have ideas about it, so we are all idealists. Now, when we get together and share our ideas about it, we are philosophers, or believers, or scientists or maybe all three. If we put too much emphasis on our own ideas...that is consider them fact...without the ideas being verifiable by others in the same human boat, then there is a possibility that our ideas of what is the nature of the thing in and of itself, may be erroneous. If we get together and all agree on a fact about reality, even though it is our collective "idea" about what the thing in itself is...it is "as close" as we can get to it. And for all intents and purposes, what is real to everybody (all humans) and verifiable to all humans, IS reality. There is no "higher" authority we can go to than our "collective" GOD. That is, our personal God, our personal view of reality, though "correct" in our own minds, becomes MORE correct, when two people have the same "idea". If "everybody" holds the same belief, as to what is real...then that is "scientifically" an accurate description of reality...even though it could still be thought of as a limited "idea" by some unhelpful philosophical one upsmanship. Or like the "blind men and the elephant". Each of us is sure it is rather like a leaf or a snake or a tree or a wall, but when we put our stories together, rather than stopping at our own take...we've got the whole damn elephant. or one person's model of reality equals one person's idea of it everybody's model of reality, taken together, equals reality itself (for all intents and purposes) Regards, TAR2 So have you stopped? Is it rather like a 93million mile tree, or is it a C-elephant? And Owl, I am OK with you beating your wife. She probably was asking for it.

from wiki (searching "Kant's categories") The table of judgmentsKant believed that the ability of the human understanding to think about and know an object is the same as the making of a spoken or written judgment about an object. According to him, "Our ability to judge is equivalent to our ability to think."[8] A judgment is the thought that a thing is known to have a certain quality or attribute. For example, the sentence "The rose is red" is a judgment. Kant created a table of the forms of such judgments as they relate to all objects in general.[9] Quantity Universal Particular Singular Quality Affirmative Negative Infinite Relation Categorical Hypothetical Disjunctive Modality Problematical Assertoric Apodictic This table of judgments was used by Kant as a model for the table of categories. Taken together, these twelvefold tables constitute the formal structure for Kant's architectonic conception of his philosophical system.[10] [edit] The table of categories Quantity Unity Plurality Totality Quality Reality Negation Limitation Relation Inherence and Subsistence (substance and accident) Causality and Dependence (cause and effect) Community (reciprocity) Modality Possibility Existence Necessity [edit] SchemataCategories are entirely different from the appearances of objects. According to Kant, in order to relate to specific phenomena, categories must be "applied" through time. The way that this is done is called a Schema. Similar thoughts, but no imparticle mentioned. Regards, TAR2

TaoRich, To John Cuthber's last point. I understood what you were saying about the way Eastern and Western people "think" as related to the grammar and pictographs of their written language. However, you expressed the thoughts in English, and I understood the thoughts in English. Does that mean that English can express the same thoughts, or that I didn't really understand? Regards, TAR2 Not every Japanese person, can read every Kanji character. Does that mean they can't think about those things that the Kanji stands for? They in fact might very well know the spoken word for the idea, without being aware of the character. As an illiterate English speaker might well be able to have a thought, or say a word, without being able to spell it, or recognize it on a page. I am not sure if it has been decided that language "determines" thought. I think it might work better, thinking of it, the other way 'round. Or maybe that the two are not easily considered to be that much different from the other.

Owl, Realism and Idealism? Don't know what the "excepted" meaning are. Am not well read enough. I look at it this way. There is the thing as it is, which is real. And then there is the way we understand it to be, which is our "idea" of it. Not having your IQ scores, I am probably not capable of the speed and accuracy with which you can "bounce" from one to the other. But a bounce is required. That is, you need to change perspective to entertain the perceptions that are "real" and the ones that are "ideal". On a personal note, I have alway had difficulty with deductive and inductive reasoning, that is, knowing the difference between the two. It seems to me that we reason in both directions, and would have a hard time reasoning either way, with out the help of the other. But I think you give yourself too much credit, if you think that others before you, especially the minds working on the math and transforms of relativity, are not capable of the "sound shifting" from one perspective to the other that you engage in. In fact, given the math required, to understand what is being said, I would venture to guess that the people working in the field have quite agile minds. And have the ability to tell reality from ideas about reality. We are, even the dullest of us, built to comphrehend reality. Otherwise we would not think there was such a thing. If the speed of light is always found to be a constant speed, then distance and time CANNOT be invariant. It does not work out mathematically, if this is not the case. (that is what has been discovered about reality, and tested and verified). Your"idea" of the distance between the Earth and the Sun not varying with velocity GOES AGAINST what has been discovered about reality. Why would your idea be more sound than the reality of the situation? Regardless of how smart you are? Regards, TAR2

Imparticle, I do not know anything about string theory, except maybe a quick reading of a Wiki article or a random peice in a magizine. But it seems to me that the "extra" dimensions in string theory do not describe places and times "other than" here/there and now/then, but instead describe "other" degrees of freedom that an actual here and now or there and then peice of reality seems to have. In other words, not magic or imagination, or "idea" like, but actually true, along with the hereness and nowness exhibited. To me, the fact that I am "connected" to a star 100 light years from here includes the fact that I see its photons now, saw them yesterday, and will see them tomorrow. AND it is currently shining in and of itself VERY far away from here, and what it is doing NOW, will not reach me for 100 years. It exists in the "current" universe, even though only in a "god's" eye view I can consider it so. My theory, or worldview, would say that the "real" part of that star is the photons currently arriving here and now, and its existance in the "current universe" state is not the crucial part of its "connectedness" to me. More important is what photons have already arrived, and what are currently arriving. These are the ones that have affected my reality, and are currently present. One of the reasons I am having trouble with your theory, is I don't know in what sense you mean "already has taken on or created all possible patterns". We sense reality from here and now. We know there are "other" heres and nows. But explain to me why you are always in my now, and I am always in your now...even though time is passing. Why are we in sync? Why do we just experience THIS reality? And it is not only us. Rocks, fish, clouds, planets, all "currently" exist and are locatable somewhere in our frame of reference...and are there NOW. What about the imparticle causes this? Regards, TAR2 P.S. "I appreciate that you're actually discussing it now." When was I not?

Arete, Interesting links. Did not read them through...but got the drift. In the whole thing, I would not discount the importance of authority, and politics, and economics in the "stupid" things that were done in the name of religion. Were we are now, and what we consider right and wrong, is not the same as where people were in the past. Some of the "power struggles" exist yet. And people still do stuff "for their own benefit", or for the benefit of their group. I like to think that the stupidity of the past is not the same stupidity that currently exists. And what is good for me or my group, may well be bad for some other person or group. There is a benefit to "following the rules" of the groups you identify with. And if you think about it, its hard to identify with a group at all, if you do not go by its rules. I just say this, not to apologize for religion's evils, but to defend any "evils" I may myself be engaging in, currently, that to me and my groups are "good" and proper ways to be. Take loaning money for interest. You could argue either side, that it should not be done and it is "taking advantage" of your fellow man...or you could argue that the providing of capital to worthwhile endevors powers our economy and prosperity. Just so happens that there are winners and losers in a number of human interactions. Power and authority are not by their nature completely evil, or completely good. I don't know exactly how one would determine what is objectively good or bad. It seems it is pretty much up to us to decide. What has been established in law and religion and state and philosophy and ethics, is not without its rationale. Not horrible in my mind to "go along with it". And not a bad idea to maintain the "good" stuff, and look for improvements...regardless of the fact that it may look stupid and evil later...or to somebody else. You think there is "objective" good? That can be scientifically obtained? Regards, TAR2

Ringer, But while I am visualizing what I remember seeing on the dresser and on the hall desk, I am also thinking to myself "where did I leave those keys?" Regards, TAR

PhDwannabe, I have spent the last year reading and musing on the "meaning" behind language. And NOW you tell me, I can not arrive at the answers I seek empirically. Are you quite sure about this? Perhaps we should look at what we mean by meaning. There may be some analogies between what we mean when we speak and think, and what we mean when we dream. If language is symbols and syntax, that "stand" for something. One could say that a word "means" this thing that it is standing for. Not too far removed to consider the zepplin or the fountain, or the multilayered playground, "standing" for something...meaning something. Not words, but images and memories, and arrangements, that "act" as words would act, in whatever subconscious/unconscious conversation or engagement you are involved in, when you dream. The rules appear to be a bit different in dreams than they are in reality. Whatever a dream is "about", may or may not be "understandable" to someone not having it. However, to the dreamer, whatever "situation" they are in, in a dream, is, I would imagine, "voiced" in a "language" that they comphrehend. At the time of the dream, in the dream, the "meanings" are probably somewhat obvious to the dreamer. Remembering the dream however, once you are awake, you may or may not remember the translation...what was standing for what. And I would guess, that to some degree, the reason why its hard to remember dreams is because they don't translate well into the established meaning of things in the waking world. As Appolanaria said, dreams seem to have a high "emotional" content. And I often remember the "mood" of a dream, but none of the particulars. It couldn't have been me unzipping a cloud and finding a toaster inside...that just doesn't happen...doesn't make any sense. And why would such a thing leave me in a "satisfied" accomplished, friendly mood? I must have been dreaming about something else. I am not talking about Zepplins being phalic, that is too simplictic and would "make sense" to someone that was not having the dream. I am talking about the Zepplin "meaning" whatever it is standing for in the context of the dream, for the dreamer. Might not be a way to empirically settle on meaning for a particular dream. But that does not mean that a meaning was not portrayed in the dream. Regards, TAR2

drewmillar, Sorry, no, I just sort of am aware that there are investigations into Probabilistic logic, game theory, chaos theory and such, and that there seem to be such attributes that reality appears to "consist of", or that have some role in the mix. I am not familiar with the "actual" determinations that have been made in these fields. I didn't mean to bring these things up, as someone who knew exactly to what they were referring. Just a personal "feeling" of mine, that I am unique, and by extension, all other humans that ever where or are to be, were, or will be as well. And by further extension, that every "location" in space and time is unique, as soon as its position in space and time is defined...because no other "entity" but it, occupies that particular place and time...and such a place and time, in a "changing" universe, is not repeatable...because the entire universe would have to "go back" to the exact same configuaration it had before...which in my estimation is impossible. Something can be "like" something else, but I do not see a way it can be exactly the same in both space and time and in reference to the rest of the universe...because if it was, it would be that unique thing, not "other than" that unique thing. So no, I don't have a book to point you toward. But you might Wiki these things, and if you find I am talking out the wrong end of my body, please let me know. Regards, TAR2 Electrons may very well be "interchangable", but a particular electron, is one that is perhaps orbiting in the x energy level of the x shell of a particular type of atom that is in a particular molecule in a particular mineral on a particular hillside in South Dakota at 12:32am sharp on Dec. 3rd here on Earth (in the milkyway, local string, this part of the universe), which differenciates it from one I imagine is existant somewhere in my right pinky fingernail orbiting in a particular energy level and shell of a particular calcium atom, I might be able to identify if I wasn't typing and had an electron microscope at my disposal. It also is a "different" electron that is orbiting the nucleus in South Dakota, one shell up from the one first located. Makes we wonder what people are thinking about, when they say something like "if I was born in Russia in the 12th century". Which attributes of "them" are they taking on the imaginary trip? If I were born in 12th century Russia I would be a 12th century Russian, most likely, and have no particular TARlike attributes (other than generically human ones), and no benefit of any human insights or technological advances that were made in the "yet to be" 800 years. I am not arguing that we can't put ourselves in other peoples shoes. We can and do. But it is a mental excercise that does not "complete" the transferal in all aspects. If all aspects were completed, it wouldn't be you at all, it would be a 12th century russian.

Imparticle, But still to explain is why we seem to be at a particular time, at a particular place, and intuit the universe from this particular here and now. All the things we consider real have these same attributes. Things either are or are not here or there, or are or are not present, formerly present, or "to be" present. Even stars a hundred thousand light years from here, the images of which we will not see for a hundred thousand years, are considered to be currently existant. Even with relativity theory, and spacetime geometry considered, there is a consistency that every event/entity in the universe exhibits. Each has a unique and locatable place and a time to be (or a probability of being there). Four dimensions seem to cover the whole shabang. Where in this spacetime are we to locate an imparticle? Saying it is an imparticle sets in my mind that it has a place somewhere in time and space. That it is between this or that, or causes this or that, or through its convulsions, create this or that effect. It either has a place and time to be part of the scheme, or it is not part of the scheme of time and space. I am sort of voting for "nothing" breaking apart into symmetries that have not yet completed their convulsions and anihilated each other leaving nothing behind. Evidently it has taken the universe 13.7 billion years to get this convulsed, and may not for a very very long time manage to unconvulse to nothing. Isn't an invisible particle with no place or time to be, sort of "uneeded" in the scheme? And where did these particles come from, and when did they arrive? And what will they do next? Regards, TAR2 And if there are "other" convulsions that these imparticles are responsible for, isn't it only THIS particular convulsion that we have any reason to be concerned with?

Lucky for you... I have nothing to say on the matter.

Ponderer, Religious freedom and the laws of the U.S. that protect it are wise to allow us each to hold our own understanding and relationship with God/Universe/Nature/Reality. They don't call it a personal relationship for nothing. Our founding fathers were very right to consider that a union of men and women, established to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, could not by definition include the forcing of a particular "belief in a personal god" on others. And attempts have been made to keep church and state out of each other's hair. Science and religion though have not been thusly divided, and science is not either state, or religion. The state is upheld by both the religious and the scientific minded. You feel your religion is not respected. I feel you are not respecting my right to challenge your assertions. The law was made to protect each of us from being abused by the will of the other, and to keep any belief, even the belief of the majority, from being forced down the throat of a non-believer. Otherwise, there would not be freedom of religion. If you have a belief, that you believe it would be reasonable for me to hold as well, then you should give me the reasons and defend the reasons against my counter arguments. It has nothing to do with me respecting or disrespecting YOUR beliefs. It has everything to do with me agreeing with or disagreeing with your BELIEFS. Personally I think God/Reality/Nature/Universe and I are OK with each other, and I don't really think what anybody else thinks makes a whit of difference in the matter. Its sort of between me and it. You, telling me I am wrong in this determination is not respecting MY religion, and my personal relationship with the entity we are referring to. But I will certainly entertain sensible arguments that would make me change my mind. But, you are off to greener pastures. Stay well. Stay happy. And give everybody else the latitude you would have them give you. Regards, TAR2

drewmillar, I was trying to say that although our species expanding our environment into the solar system and perhaps the local Galaxy is one logical outcome, there may be other logical outcomes as well. To your coin toss, with still air and a mechanical flip, so calibrated as to account for exactly how the coin will land on a known surface, how it will bounce so that it makes the exact same bounce and "always" will land with the same side up or down that was up or down on launch. How could you know this without "practicing"? And setting it up and running the experiment over and over, calibrating and arranging and filing the coin to balance it the way it would need to be balanced to get your results. And what if the precision of your launching apparatus, in velocity and angular rotation could not be adjusted fine enough to assure a "heads" landing with any more than 4 360 degree rotations and a height of toss less than 2 feet. Would you claim the experiment a success, and ignore the variations that might occur if it was an eight foot toss with 15 rotations? I read in Discover once, about the problem designers had with water slides. It seems that "chaos" theory is involved, and slight changes in the water stream at the top, combined with the weight and distribution of the rider, every once in a while sets up a harmonic oscillation that unfortunately throws that very occasional rider out of the chute. In anycase, these are situations where we test and figure and do what we can to get the desired result. In many places we have achieved amazing reliability. But not without practice and adjustment and not without control of the initial conditions and not without efforts to eliminate anything that "might" interfere with the desired outcome. Here we are talking about destiny. That somehow, as soon as you are born, the whole life follows, scientifically, or divinely set. That there is no chaos, that there are no unintended consequences, that there is no "choice". I think that there is choice. As soon as there is thought, and will and the ability to make your will so. At that point, you can either make it so, or fail to make it so. And that choice will set the conditions for your next choice. With 8 billion or whatever wills on this planet, all with the ability to do, and not do any number of things, I do not think the exact result is preset. Regards, TAR2 and I failed to include all the other lifeforms on this planet that each have their own will to be done. nor did I include the interactions of the wind and sea, clouds and movement of earth and lava. The Earthquake in Japan in the spring had wide ranging effects on many lifes around the planet. What if nuclear power falls out of favor, replaced by wind and solar and thermal and shale oil and gas...and we needed the nuclear to blast out of the solar system. Where would the "logic" of our species spreading to inhabit the local galaxy be then? If "destinies" can change. Then they are not destinies, merely possibilities. And if we have, together, the ability to make a possible thing a real thing, or not, then we are in charge of our destiny. And so for each of us, to the limits of our personal reach.

John Cuthber, Interesting to me is the fact that you CAN translate a meaning between languages. I would include symbols in "language". And having "your own language" to think in would be a possibility for young children that do not show a complete grasp of the language of their parents. When I was very young, before I could "talk", I would converse with my year and a half year older sister. My parents regarded it as "babble". My sister knew what I was talking about. There seems to me, to be a conventional nature to language. Perhaps some "roots" that have been continually used and modified for ages, but still, within a particular group of people that use a common language, there is meaning associated with words, that is commonly understood, because the words that are used ARE the ones you use to communicate that meaning. Consider esoteric fields where everyone involved has read the same literature, applied the same principles and learned and use the same vocabulary. PSU where I work is known to all to be referring to the Power Supply Unit of the machiine. "Where Kant and Hegel disagree" would mean reams in certain circles. In every scientific disipline there are huge concepts and mountains of evidence behind rather short and unintuitive terms. If you are aware of the studies and arguments and findings behind the term, then you know "what it means". If you do not know all that, the term can not mean all those things, to you. Till you go do some reading, or someone explains it to you, and you "learn" the meaning behind the term. With your family I am sure you have some terms that will mean something to the "initiated" that will go right over the head of others in the room. If I say "Uncle Louie", my sister might laugh, but you would have no clue what I meant. Unless you knew Uncle Louie or some of the stories about him. Words have meaning. They often have definitions made with other words that each have a meaning. Sometimes different meanings in different contexts. Sometimes "shades" of meaning. While I would agree with you that you can manipulate stuff in your mind, without using words, I am not sure you can do it, without visualizing SOMETHING. And since you are imagining something, that is standing for something else, or is an analogy of something else, I would argue that you are using language. Even if it is your own, reprentational language that you are using. I would still say that you have to have language to think. No? Yes? Maybe so? Regards, TAR2