tar

kontantin, The specifics you give in terms of numbers are interesting to me, in terms of "where do you get these numbers?" Are the levels based on first hand reports that have be documented, or relayed word of mouth, down through the ages? If so, in what manner did those consciounesses that crossed the bridge, to forms other than human, relay the information of their journey, back to us humans? The other possibility is that there is something nescessary about there being this particular arrangement of ascending spirals, and levels and such, in some mathematically or logically required way. The principles involved in this determination did not seem to be described in the OP. On another tack, I am wondering "how many consciousnesses are there?" that are partaking in this event. Where in the scheme do "collections of human consciousnesses" come in. For instance, what level is "the University of Michigan" on? Or the U.S.A.? Or the European Union? Is an ant colony "one" consciouness in the scheme? That could decide to move on to the next level? Or is each ant, a separate consciousness? On a practical basis, if I were to be in the room with you, as you transcended from human form, across a bridge to the other than human form required to be at the next level, what is it that I would see happening? Or is the whole operation contained in your imagination? Regards, TAR2

Would like to reiterate Jackson33's statement of fact, that when we see a Galaxy doing something, it is not indeed what that Galaxy is doing now. We don't even know what the rest of our Milky Way is doing right now. In fact since our Sun's nearest neighbors are a light year or two away, we won't know what THEY are doing right now, for a year or two. So when you ask "is the universe speeding up", I would have to ask in return, "compared to what?" Seems much more likely, that the universe is churning about, and some of it is moving toward us, and some of it away. When you consider the emense scales that this is happening on, where whole strings of galaxies and voids are changing shape and structure, and the whole operation is happening so far away that we won't know about the details for millions or billions of years, at which point the details will be history, and those areas of space already in some other configuration, I would say that the universe, as a whole, is probably not doing only one thing, now. Regards, TAR2

Marat, I am not familiar with Peter Strawson. Perhaps I will get so, after I grasp the "categories" as laid out in the "Critique of Pure Reason". As you know, I am after the meaning behind the words, and the "physical reality" that makes our consciousness possible. In this, I would imagine that the "outside stability" is not only the other human consciounesses that we have to look at ourselves through the eyes of, but also the evolutionary history of the human species, that has given us "the vehicle" with which we experience the world. Not only is it difficult to imagine an other than human perspective. There is a question in my mind as to what purpose it would serve to take such a perspective, even if it was possible. Though to me, and perhaps you, Nazis were (are) bad, it is the preponderance of people that hold the same determination, that matters. If there are those in the world that are my friends, and those who are my enemies, those who go by my rules and those who do not, it is my place to help my friends to succeed and cause my enemies to fail where ever the imposition of their rules will defeat the maintanence of my rules (what I know to be good.) Would be strange indeed to program a machine (or any "other than human mind" to determine what is good and what is bad under these circumstances, and "go by" their determination. It is up to humans to determine what is best...for humans. We would not have courts, if this was objectively determinable. That is, we can objectively view ourselves, by putting ourselves in the shoes of some other entity...but it is always "us" standing in the shoes. Regards, TAR2

Marat, Yes, I am heavily influenced by Kant, and Pinker and (just starting a Chomsky book), since they are some of the authors I have at my right at the moment, along with Deutscher. All only partially read, and it doesn't take much grist for my mill to go off grinding, so I enjoy such discussions as these, as much as reading more of what great minds have already discovered about language. Interesting to me is how one can use the phrase " what WE know " and be referring to stuff that the utterer may not themselves be aware of. Points to a membership in a "consciousness" greater than that of a single human organism. A consciousness that evidently has everything other than any intention to commit suicide. In this, I would have to say that consciousness of this type appears to be a "good" thing, because the continuation of human consciousness is the one thing that we have all been striving for, since we started being human. Regards, TAR2

Marat, I do not now how to get rid of the little voting bar at the end of your post to see what the end of your last sentence was. For me your sentence ended "common denomenators which..." I do need to know the rest, to know whether I am agreeing or disagreeing. But I do think that language is "common" for a reason. If I have internalized the world, and hold an analog model of it, a "working model" in many senses and there are elements of this model that you also have in your model, it would not really matter if your image of green was more like my image of middle C, as long as I experienced the middle C thing when I looked at a tree's leaf in the summer. That is what green is to you, and that is what green is to me. It's our ability to both refer to the leaf as green, that makes for language, and the fact that we have both "seen" a leaf in the summer and learned that this experience is an experience of a leaf shaped green growth at the end of the branch of a tree. If you know what I "mean" by that, the manner of my own coding, my internal image, "the way" my brain is impressed by that image is no reason for either of us to doubt the greeness of the leaf. Or for that matter, to consider that residing in the others brain would be an alien experience. For if we were to assume the other's position, as the awareness or consciousness contained in the other's body/brain/heart group, we would actually BE the other consciousness, and would carry none of our own wiring, (or memories) with us. I guess this is what was meant by your fellow considering his move into the emperor as being the death of "his" consciousness. So I would pretty much disagree that qualia should be considered private, special things, that are completely alien experiences to others. In fact it is the very sameness of our qualia, that give us the common ground from which we draw distinctions, and find ways to share our common experiences of the world, (and of ourselves). For instance, to half quote the famous philosopher Marat, "I think that at some point everyone goes through the uncomfortable experience of wondering whether..." How could you think that, if our qualia where not of similar construction? How I would put it, is that we have completely different models, of the exact same world, built with similiar equipment. Our different models are due to our unique history of position and experience, not so much because of a radical difference in equipment. I have a rather intimate knowledge of the basement room I am typing from. It is part of my model of the world. It is not included in your model. However if you came here, you would recognize all the elements in it, and call them the same thing I call them. And the green things, you would call green. You might not know the history of each object and what they "meant" to me. But I could tell you. So where is the "mystery" in qualia? Regards, TAR2 P.S. Now I see the end of your post "hide the dissonances between us." But I do think it may be the other way around. It is our common way of experiencing the world that allows us to share our experiences of it. Words are shorthand for actual, real things about the world that we have common experience of. In a sense, language is communication between two minds, that already know each other. Two minds, that use the same shorthand.

Marat, Not so sure I can imagine a "negation" of my own type of life. There are too many components to imagine the opposite of all, and what that would mean. Although ones sense of "appropriate identity" does seem to rely on the we vs. they type of distinctions, I think it is a complicated calculus that includes a large body of elements that are "we" elements, as well as a number of elements that are "they" elements, when it comes to the "putting oneself in someone elses shoes". For instance, if I am sitting next to someone in a Red Sox jersey, and I have my Yankee hat on, watching the game at Yankee stadium, there are many things I have in common with the guy/girl, and only one main rule that we are taking opposing sides on. When "Big Poppy" (a Boston star) hits a home run, we both experience the same event, understand its meaning, and have completely different reactions to it. He/She a victorious feeling, and I one of defeat. Still "we" are both baseball fans, enjoying a drink, a hotdog and an exciting, beautiful summer evening at the ballpark. And for both, the "story" is not over (since its the top of the 6th for us both). Any number of other things, we could hold in common. He may be my twin brother. Not difficult in most ways to imagine my consciousness "settling" in his and comprehending his thoughts, and participating in his consciousness, and his peculiar atmosphere of thought. I would just have to imagine my own and change Yankee Blue to Boston Red and imagine it's A-rod at Fenway hitting the home run, and it's him putting himself, in my shoes. Regards, TAR2 P.S. This post took a completely different tack, than my original reply to your post last night (which I lost due to computer lock up.) In that one, I talked about how we may have an "area" of our brain that we keep the "bad examples" in, and made analogies of jail and hell and talked about closet doors that we keep locked with "us" on the outside, and those bad things captured and held at bay. In that reply I attempted to address the "uneasy" feeling, and explain it by considering the recursions and frame shifts involved in putting oneself in someone else's shoes, where you may lose track of which side of which closet door "you" are on. P.P.S And I ended the post by saying that "happily our consciousness is unavoidably bound to our own body/brain/heart group." Which does, in retrospect, give us a safe home, and a unique identity, from which we can imagine the rest.

excuse me, I posted after reading #20, I thought is was the last post. After reading the rest, I would like to address Peel's quest for the element sufficient and necessary for consiousness. I am thinking it is pleasure and pain. One thing, in the sense that the absence of the one is usually the other. This is the "thing" perhaps. If we could put inanimate stuff together in such a way as the combination would "feel" this and react to maintain the pleasure, and avoid the pain... This line of thought is based on looking for a "reason", why a pattern would seek to maintain itself. That is, "outside" the normal purvue of accidental combinations of energy exchange. Survival of the fittest, yes. But what is "good" about survival that causes the organism to seek it? Most life operates in such a fashion as to avoid certain states, and to make efforts to maintain others. On some level, the organism must be "aware" of the difference. Consider this. We have a predictive motor simulator, that rehearses motor neuron firing, before actually firing the motor neurons, that finds the timing and combination that will result in the desired muscle movement. This, an evolved mechanism that uses the historical results (learned) of certain combinations that will result in the "pleasing" movement. Not difficult to imagine such a facility being repurposed to predict the results of efforts expended on the surroundings outside the nervous system. (Given of course the millions of years we have had to develop such a thing.) But still, regardless of the complexity we have achieved, and our ability to use and share symbols and metaphors and tools, there remains a basic underlying purpose, to maintain the "good" and avoid the "bad". Peel, could this be the "thing"? Regards, TAR2

Glider, There are a lot of "kinds" of pain that I have experienced in my life. Tooth aches, stubbed toes, cuts, seeing my girlfriend in the arms of another, watching somebody make the wrong decision, realizing I have made a terrible mistake, etc. What argues against Cognition's "qualia" stance, is that chances are, you have experienced similar types of pain and can therefore put yourself in my shoes, in the above situations, and "know" what kind of pain I am talking about, and the kind of pain I probably experienced in the above pain situations. No doubt, people have different "pain" thresholds, which I would consider the point at which NOTHING else occurs but attention to it. But in any case, I would guess that pain is our body's/mind's/heart's way of telling us something is wrong. Cognition easily understands the situation others are in, by considering how he/she would "feel" being in the same situation. You can not "know" all the sensation inputs, and all the accrued memories, that an unresponsive patient is experiencing, and what is demanding their attention at any particular moment, but you can make a resonable guess at what you would do, or want done to end the "pain" that they are probably in, given the situation you observe them to be in. So, I would say that the lowest level of consciousness, would be on the low end of the scale measuring ones awareness of their own state. It is probably important in this discussion to decide whether we are talking about "human consciousness", or about awareness in general, in which case the bimetal strip might be a candidate. And "human consciousness" has some very many component correlates with other mammals, and by extention with other life forms. May be that "life" and the distinction between inanimate and animate, defines the boundry between that without, and that with consciousness. And somewhere in that neighborhood, we would find that with the lowest level of consciousness. Regards, TAR2

Marat, I happen to be musing oftern of late on the idea of "identity". This spurred by a section in a Stephen Pinker book called "The Stuff of Thought". I have been investigating language since November, in an attempt to understand the meaning behind the words. In the Pinker book he takes an idea from Bertram Russell and expounds upon it. I have forgotten the exact examples he used but the drift is that the same idea in the first person (I,we) is good, the same idea referring to the second person is neutral and when used in referrence to the third person is bad. Such as I am thin, you are scrawny, he is emaciated. Or I am exploring my sexuality, you are loose, and she is a slut. Never-the-less, it put me on an exploration of those things that cause us to say "we" and there-by cause us to consider the people NOT in that group as "they". Perhaps I should start a thread on the topic. Or perhaps it is very much a part of this one. There are about a score of things I have thought of so far, like religion, spoken language, written language, tribal linkages, physical characteristics (us 6 foot males, us people over 50), geographical commonalities, interests, purposes, common experiences (we who saw the twin towers burn, we are going on vacation to the mountians next week), fans of a certain sports team, coworkers, institutional membership, national or other political membership, philosophical leanings, intellectual capacity (may be part of shared physical characteristics), family, people that know so-and-so personally (may be part of shared experience), and so on. In anycase the question of whether consciousness is good or bad, may be linked to which identity or combination of identities you are concentrating on or considering, or are "conscious" of at the moment. And given the fact that we look at those not in our group in a negative light, it is probably much easier for us to consider someone else, in the "they" category of one type or another as likey to find their life worth ending. Certainly not as easy to take the thought that someone in a "we" category would want to end their life. Unless of course the death is for "us". Such as a suicide bomber dying for believers to battle the Great Satan, or the group of heroes on Flight 83 rushing the hijackers and taking the plane down when they knew it was a missle aimed at "our" capitol. I will maintain my appraisal, that consciousness is not a good thing or a bad thing, but the only thing. Regards, TAR2

Marat, I think you are right. The cessation is the goal. I was just pointing out that it was not a rest that would refresh. It is not an escape to something better, it is the death of you. I am very conscious of the fact that given our mortality, and our awareness of it, there are many things that mortals before us, have done for the benefit of conscious lifes that will remain after their death. This points to an awareness we all have of "something greater" than ourselves. A consciousness that we can consider ourselves a part of, that will not be destroyed by our own death. The memory of us will remain in the minds of those we touched. Our works will remain, to be noticed by other minds. But this is true of any death. And in all cases, the one that dies, is done doing, is done remembering, and can no longer enjoy life. The enjoying is only done between birth and death. And cessation of joy is not what we are after. We seem to me to be constructed in such a way as we look for joy, and look for ways to provide the same opportunity for joy to others. One could always consider their responsibility to the human spirit, and the effect that their death would have upon it. Regards, TAR2

I guess I have sort of a philosophical problem with that assessment. Abnormal is a given, since normal brain development includes input from normally functioning eyes. But incorrectly is a different concept. To be incorrect you would have to assume that there is one correct way for the brain to develop. This is obviously not the case, since we all learn different things, and each of us has a unique model of the world that we hold. Plus, the fact that human brains have much in common with each other, speaks to the fact that such an arrangement as we all possess has been very successful at internalizing the world, building a analog model of it, and being able to imagine it different ways, by working with this model. If the brain is plastic, and able to learn about the world, by some repurposing of the normal use of certain structures, this may indeed be correct. It is still the already correct outside world being correctly internalized. Just not in the normal way. I like to leave open the idea that our brains are an analog reflection of reality. I do not think we are "other than" reality. We are made up of it. As such, even an abnormal brain, is still correct in many ways. But still, maybe I am missing your point. But if I am, then maybe there is an assumption that is being made, in terms of "how a brain should be", that I do not understand the logical basis to. If a brain should be a certain way, then how did it ever evolve? And is it done evolving? Regards, TAR2

Marat, I have a theory that often when suicide occurs, it is when a person looses control of things they would rather control, and they find a certain satisfaction and controlling power, in the ability to have the final say in the matter of their own existence. Problem is, they won't be around to savor their victory. So in my estimation, its a pointless excercise, an attempt at relief of discomfort that will yield no pleasure. That in fact will only relieve you of the one thing you've got...consciousness. Permanently. In fact, I think it rather inappropriate that the eventual end to TAR2 is an unavoidable certainty and as such, feel that the one thing I truely do have control over, is making it possible to continue to live and assisting others in doing the same. Regards, TAR2

thinker_jeff, Yeah, I have a tendency to look at things the way I want to see them. Not very scientific. But still, the learning process did occur. Someone could say something sensible to me in plain Arabic...and even though it might be a sensible true statement about the real world...I wouldn't be able to recognize it. I couldn't map it to the world I know. I would have to learn what sounds meant what. I don't see it as a surprising finding that a blind person would not be able, by some magic suddenly switched on program, to immediately coordinate his/her visual perceptions, with the world he/she had up to that point learned about, in terms of touch and sound information. It seems quite sensible that they would have to learn what goes with what. It seemed to me, from the abstract, that that is what was found in the study. What am I missing? Regards, TAR2 as I understand it, when a human baby first opens its eyes, they "see" two separate blurry images, upside down and backward We learn to focus near and far, put the images together, and put things right in terms of up and down and left and right, as we move around the world and learn about it, and our relationship to it.

DevilSolution, But why do you think linear is lie. And cakes don't have to be circular, though they often are. But still, back to the linear, if you have opposition, or if the evil shows you the good, there is a metaphorical "place" where evil is, that is different than the metaphorical "place" where good is. You get to the one, by leaving the other behind. Although they thusly each define the other, there still is a linear trip one can make conceptually between the two. As such, "beyond" good in my mind requires that you have made the trip from evil to good and are going in the direction of "even better". You seem to be saying that "even better" winds you back up at "worse". This makes no sense to me in a metaphoric mapping type of way. I don't understand your internal metaphoric geometry. That is why I asked for your direction, and axis. I am fully prepared to accept a spherical or acending/decending spiral geometry. Whatever you have. I'm thinking you are being more cryptic than nonsensical. But still would like your explanation. Regards, TAR2

DevilSolution, I am not understanding your posts. Are you being very cryptic? Or are you just putting random nonsense on the page. Regards, TAR

good thing, bad thing? How about the only thing? Had a thought several years ago, that the purpose of life was "to be", to enjoy being, and to make it possible for others to do the same. To me, a human is of and in the universe, aware of the state of it, at one particular time (now), at one particular place (here). And from this position in time and space we can know what came before and predict what will happen next, and know what is outside and what is inside. Our consciousness is our focus at the moment. God cannot focus on anything because he/she/it is everywhere at once and always has been and always will be. What fun is that? Nothing to see, nothing to hear, nothing to feel or taste or think about or predict, that isn’t already known. How could God "focus" on anything? It's got no reference point. One way to consider our consciousness, is that we, for a short time, are of God (God being all there is/nature/the universe/eternity/existence/reality/or however you wish to put it), but are doing it a favor, by NOT knowing everything that ever was or will be, instead, just knowing here and now. From this point, we can imagine the rest. In my way of thinking of this, it makes no sense that "I" existed prior my birth, or that "I" will exist after my death. The "I" is my current focus, made possible by my mortal human body/brain/heart group, that is, by its evolved mechanisms able to sense the world, internalize it, and build an analog model of the world in the neural connections and folds of my brain. Awareness of the state of this model, here and now, awareness of TAR2's body/brain/heart group (in my case) is what consciousness is. I'll go with it, as long as it lasts. It's my job. Sometimes pleasurable, sometimes painful, but always, the only thing I've got. ('til I don't have it no more) Regards, TAR

DevilSolution, beyond good? In what direction? Along what axis? Regards, TAR2

thinker_jeff, I did not subscribe to the article, but I got its drift. The important part to me, is that the newly sighted person rapidly mapped the visual information to what they already knew the world was like. The line I am pursuing, in my general muses since November is an attempt to understand language in all its aspects. I wish to understand the "meaning" that is held in words, and I attempting to understand this from neurological, evolutionary, physical points of view as well as linguistic, and philosophical ones. There are many things we understand in a metaphorical way, we draw analogies, fill in patterns, take ratios, put one thing in the place of another, and so forth. But the basic building blocks of what we think, are the patterns we have internalized, of the outside world, and made a part of us. My theory is that we build an analog model of the outside world, that we hold within us, with that which we sense. The unsighted person had access to the outside world, moved about in it, learned about its objects and the relationship between the objects. He/she knew many things about the objects, just not what they looked like. The analogy I use for a thought experiment is to outfit myself with a pair of goggles hooked to a computer and a hand held device that "sees" in whatever frequency range you set it too. You could set it for radio wave and "see" what they look like (with the lower frequencies depicted in your goggles as red and the higher frequencies of the range you set, depicted as purple). The important thing is that there is a one to one correspondence, depicting in an analog fashion, the frequencies you cannot sense to frequencies you can. Perhaps your device could pick up magnetic fields, or compression waves, or detect certain chemical signatures...in any case you could "see" what the patterns and distributions and interactions, "looked" like. Then consider, instead of goggles you had a mat with tiny "pixel" points that could vibrate and extend and heat that you would put your hands on, or place on your belly or you back or somewhere where the "points" of sensation were close. If you assigned in an analog fashion, low frequency to slow and cool, high frequency to fast and hot, and amplitude to extension (pressure), you could "feel" what something "looked" like. Point is when you "first" set the modality and the range, you will experience something new, but rapidly "learn" to map it to your model of the world. And then the new aspects you experience will be part of your model. Regards, TAR2

apricimo, The "constantly evolving" of your post, and the "information" of Mooeypoo's can be tied together nicely by the idea of "memory". That is to say that the patterns of the universe, arriving at a particular place and time, through the various "photonic" means, DO SOMETHING, to that particular place and time, and that particular place and time, in turn, releases photons (after some very small but most likely measureable "delay") that then travel outward from that particular place and time to "inform" the rest of the universe of the event. Thus in a very real sense, the universe is not ever finished doing what it does, and any particular place and time "remembers" to various extents and durations, that which has "happened" to it. The ideas posted above, of fuel generation, and heat being held in a rock, and photosynthesis all have this "memory" idea. The "reflexes" exhibited by early life forms, as they move toward light or fuel sources, may not be a completely different idea from "reflection". Consider the surface of a lake, with an exact analog copy of the scene above the shoreline, reflected below the shoreline. Then the folds of the brain, and our ability to hold a "model" of the universe in our memory. Regards, TAR2

Marat, And the fact that the lathe he had touched was probably a different style than the one in the museum. (Lower case lathe.) And sometimes,(to turn the table on the question), you hear a sound behind you, and can not identify it, without turning around and seeing what is making the sound. Perhaps the 52 year old would not have to turn around to know what just made the sound. Regards, TAR2

abnormally? Thinker_jeff, Abnormally, but maybe not "incorrectly". I am assuming that since the blind person understood geometry, they "knew" what a circle was, and a square, and what a straight line was, and so forth. Not unlikely they could hold a ball in their hands, and move their hands around it and tell you it was a sphere. Or walk in a straight line. The world we internalize is already correct, and stays correct, regardless of which aspects of it we discover and add to our model of it. Presumably the blind person we are talking about still had the senses of taste, smell, touch, and hearing, and could explore the world, and be told about the world, and internalize many of the characteristics of the world, enough to build a sensible model of it, that fit together, the way the model of a "normal" person's would. Not surprising that a brain deprived of one of the senses it had evolved to work with, would develop "abnormally", but much of the apparatus evolution bestowed upon that blind person, in terms of the functioning of memory and the ability to sense their own body, and its position within the space and time it found itself in, remained intact. Perhaps, given the way that persons brain rewired and repurposed functional units of the brain, their brain developed "normally" exactly the way it could, under the circumstances. But you are right. I have no studies. Regards, TAR2

Marat, Interesting to me is the statement that the blind person with the repaired optic nerve did not recognize the geometric shape when FIRST shown it. I assume that this means they soon fit together the auditory perceptions with the new visual ones, as they moved and looked and heard around. Thus updating their model of the world, with their new insights. For instance, perhaps certain soft objects that they had never touched, looked bigger than they had heard, and certain hard objects smaller, or farther away than they had imagined from their echoes. Regards, TAR2

RobotTemplar and SMF, Nice discussion. Thank you. My interest in neuroscience is an attempt at understanding the physical structure of our brains and body, in relation to language. That is, I have an interest in understanding the meaning behind words. And given the fact that we communicate the best with other humans, I jump to the conclusion that that is because we come with the same equipment, and hence "already know" something about the other mind we are communicating with. So in learning what has been discovered about how we are put together, I learn a lot about what it is we share, meaningwise, when we communicate. Along the lines of this thread however, I do have a thought, and a question. The "plasticity" that was mentioned, I take means that one "setup" in the system, might be repurposed, if need be, and I was wondering if this ability was an important thing to understand, in the evolution of our system, in the growth of our system and in the functioning of our system. For instance, given a set of sensory neurons, located in a particular location of the body, say a finger, and a set of motor neurons that can fire and move that finger, and a brain that can remember what is sensed as a result of a particular firing order and timing, there is a certain amount of "learning" that goes on. I heard we have a "predictive motor simulator" that rehearses the firing order and timing "before" actually firing the motor neurons that will activate various muscles resulting in coordinated motion. So my question is, how plastic IS the system? For instance, if you took some "close point" area of skin surface and attached a device that could deliver variable pressure and heat to each "point", and controlled the heat and pressure based on the frequency and intensity of focused light hitting the device(which would have a sensor system layed out with a one to one correspondence with the skin "points"), could you learn to "see" your environment as you pointed the device around, and "learned" the patterns of sensation? Regards, TAR2

michel123456, Who are the other 11? Regards, TAR2 P.S. I am not really in the committee. Posted on the older science forum regularly a while back, but moved on when religious discussion was outlawed. It looks like this ownership allows discussion as long as you try to not get personal, and you keep it civil. Anyway, perhaps Marat and I mind melded sometime in the past. My memory is not that good, to know.

Marat, My computer locked up and I lost a post. I HATE that. What I had said, was that I had not considered profound empathy in regards to my definition, but the distinction I would make is in the level of involvement. With empathy, I imagine, you are putting yourself in the other entity's shoes, but only temporarily. With profound empathy, you are getting pretty close to considering the other entities shoes, your shoes. Once you commit yourself to residing in the same shoes, I would consider that including the other entity in your feeling of self. Said it better, the first time, but this will have to do. (I do HATE losing good posts. I can never reproduce them correctly.) Regards, TAR2 John, What is the opposite of Thursday? What is the opposite of wall? Why do you suppose that love has an opposite? Some time in the late afternoon on Sunday. Open window. Its the way we think. Regards, TAR2