tar

Thread, Each color "wheel" divided into 6 60 degree segments. The center of the number 1 segment holds R0/360 and Y0/360 with the degrees proceeding up and to the right for red and up and to the left for yellow. The number 11 segment holds the 0/360 point in its center for the blue and green "wheel", with the degrees proceeding up and to the right for blue and up and to the left for green. Regards, TAR pictures came in rotated put the balloon tail at the south pole for bearings in terms of what is up and right and left for segment 1 and 11

Thread, Each North toothpick can be thought of as North axis point of its six segment color wheel. The degrees would go around like lines between the segments of a tangerine. Although this particular tangerine would have virtual segments for each of the four colors. The degree lines would run from the north end of that color toothpick, to the south end. The important part of the lines would be those segments of the lines within the six segments making up the "wheel" of that color. For instance, the great circle going through red and green is the 330 degree marker on the border between the number 6 and number 1 red segment, and also, coming up the other side, the 150 degree line between the number 3 red segment and the number 4 red segment. The degrees proceed around the North red toothpick CCW with 0/360 being in the center of segment 1. The degrees proceed around the North yellow toothpick CW with 0/360 being in the center of segment 1. Around the north blue CCW with 0/360 of the blue wheel being in segment 11. And CW around the green north, with 0/360 for the green wheel, also being through the center of segment 11. Of course the south ends of the toothpicks would appear reversed with the red degrees proceeding CW, the yellow CCW, the blue CW and the green CCW. Regards, TAR

Thread, Just lost an explanatory post. Will fill in the details later, but here is the figure built with 12 great circles, really 6 since the same circle is both the great circle that goes from the red toothpick through the yellow as the one that goes from the yellow toothpick through the red. Purpose is to begin to relate the TAR coordinates to other coordinate systems. The three points on the sphere are marked by toothpicks. Four colors, 8 points, consistent with the corners of a cube. The red cube has a dot on the facing edge, which corresponds to the center of segment number 1. The cube is cut in half horizontally by the xz plane. The yz plane cuts the viewer in half vertically cutting the cube lead edge to far edge, and the xy plane cuts the cube in half corner to corner. Regards, TAR

Thread, Built out to the 5th level. 252 balls in the outside shell. There are many 5 step routes, always going away from the center, to a ball on the outside shell, always traveling to a touching ball. This is demonstrable on any full hex plane, going through the center and on any full square plane going through the center. I believe it is also possible to find 5 step routes, always traveling outward to touching balls, but shifting between planes. Regards, TAR 1,12,42,92,162,252 after 12 the progression is 30,50,70,90

RobbityBob1, I think it probably best to listen to Ed Earl and CharonY and NOT stick anything in you ear bigger than your elbow, or pour anything stronger than water or vegetable oil in there. But, in the interest of experimentation, if you are very careful not to get anywhere near your eardrum, I will note that I woke up today with the Tinnitus rather loud, mostly in my left, but a little in my right, swabbed both with peroxide, and then repeated the conditioner thing, in my left ear. Half hour or so later, I noted that the tinnitus was less, again, like yesterday. May well be psychological, but there might be some small chance that something can leech past the eardrum and affect the chemistry inside. I am hesitant to say the name of the conditioner, as that would open the company up to any lawsuits generated by people breaking their ear drums and such. Some of the active ingredients include lactic acid, potassium cloride and vitamin E and vitamin C. I think I recently read that potassium is involved in the sequence that fires some of the neurons involved in the hearing process. Perhaps I should try sticking a banana in my ear. In any case, I just touched the tip of a moistened swab to a drop of the stuff, and ran the swap once around the first level and once around the second level in my left ear, and then did the same immediately with just water on the tip. Regards, TAR It was a type of conditioner for dry or frizzy hair.

thank you both, That makes sense. Regards TAR

Ten Oz, Agreed. Regards, TAR

Had a guess bout my Tinnitus, and ran a little experiment, which seems to have lessened it and changed character a bit. I was thinking that the little hairs in my ear, that get brittle as you age, might be "stuck" in the on position, or that somehow, the fact that the high pitch sensing capability that the hairs were supposed to give me, resulted in a constant high pitch sound, because of their non responsiveness to sound. Sort of like "hearing" silence. Anyway, I don't know if I actually have reduced the Tinnitus by the experiment, or whether it is just wishful thinking. What I did, was guess that if the hairs were not working because they were old and brittle, that softening them might help the tinnitus. I don't know if this could have possibly affected the situation, like I do not know what external fluids can get absorbed into the inner ear...but here is what I did, and the perceived results. I cleaned both ears with hydrogen peroxide on a cotton swab. The Tinnitus, the high pitch drone, like of a cicada, seemed to only be coming from my left ear, after the cleaning. (where it was equally from both, before) Then I talked to my wife about the hypothesis and asked what kind of lotion or oil or something did she think might serve to soften a hardened tiny hair, without hurting the ear, she suggested hair conditioner, that she used to soften her hair. I put a little on a cotton swab and cleaned out my left ear, then rinsed with water on a swab. The tinnitus in my left ear changed character over the next half hour or so, and it became a little less in volume, and attained a slight undertone of a lower pitch. I am finding at the moment that I am hearing far away sounds, and outside sounds, that are usually masked to a greater degree, by the Tinnitus. Just wondering if this is possible. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, Well I would expect human emotion to be a subjective thing. After all, in this society, if your are not in Utah, you marry one person. 8 billion people in the world, and you pick one to partner with. Purely subjective, no right or wrong objectively attached to your decision. Your choice need not please me, my choice need not please you. But our society puts an objective limit on the amount of life partners you should have. Everybody knows this, and knows the benefits accrued to two people facing life together, as opposed to one. These type of morays and morals and rituals and such have historical and genetic reasons to be the case. Not only religious prescriptions, but legal prescriptions and family prescriptions dictate to a person, or at least highly affect a person's choice, in terms of who he or she will "love" as a mate or life partner. So not only are the genes involved, and the hormones and the pheromones and the dopamine, but society is involved as well. Family and friends, and government and church and business, all have their say, in terms of who and what you include in your feeling of self. No one answer to what is the opposite of love, because there is no one answer to what is love in the first place. That is why I formulated a definition. So one could parse everything in terms of whether the entity in question was one you included in your feeling of self. When I was in Germany, I walked across the street from my Kaserne into a graveyard where I saw several grave stones with my family name on them. While on alert on several occasions I had live ammunition to protect secure equipment, and would muse about what I would do, if people, who could be my relatives, would want to take it. I would go out to bars in town by myself in civilian clothes to purposefully learn German, and invariably the people I sat with knew English, better than I knew German and they used the situation to practice their English. My dad was wounded in Germany during the battle of the Bulge, we visited the hill he was shot on, we saw the spot on the Saar where the 94th crossed on a pontoon bridge. I have a book with a picture of my dad being carried by German Prisoners across that bridge. I also have stories my dad told me about his time on that hill. I was in Germany to protect West Germany from Soviet Tank Invasion. I was on the side of the Germans. I fell in love with a German girl for several months. I am on the German team, as I am on the American team, as I am on the human team. The choice of teams may be subjective, but it is also not an exclusive choice. And it is not a choice that someone else can make for you, based on appearances or statistics. The teams you are on, and the teams you want to support and the people you want to please, is a calculation made, subconsciously and consciously by an individual, and can not be properly assessed from the outside. This makes it subjective, yes. But it does not make it arbitrary. We are on the teams we are on, for reasons. Objectively true reasons. Be they chemical, genetic, or societal in origin. So, in terms of the thread, if we are to figure what the opposite of love is, should we not first agree upon a definition that we can negate, to reach the opposite? Regards, TAR or perhaps simply state that the opposite of love, is unlove if a verb and out of love, if its a condition

Ten Oz, Well yes. The simple definition of love does not address every situation. It is just meant as a starting point, to understand oneself and one's assessment of others. The team thing is an offshoot, and just one team is not expected to be that case, in the overall theory. A person can be on all sorts of teams. To all sorts of different degrees. As Ed Earl has in his signature, if you are not confused, you don't understand the situation. I am in no way considering this a black and white answer to every human emotion and situation. Just a starting point. Taking good, neutral and bad, and associating those thoughts with first person, second person and third person. And assuming that those things you think of as good, are those things you associate with, and that you associate with your own self image and generally, with exceptions, things framed in the first person are good, second person neutral and third person negative. I use Pinker's example of the same thought framed in the three persons. I am exploring my sexuality, you are loose, she is a whore. Same exact sexual conduct, framed in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons. You know, from the politics thread it is obvious that people tend to demonize some group of people or another that they have decided is composed of evil people. Hate groups are on the rise in the U.S. Polarized politics, where if you are Democrat and block a conservative judge you are doing a wonderful thing, whereas if you are a Democrat and someone is trying to block a progressive Judge, you are incensed. This theory of mine is not meant to tell anyone who is right and who is wrong. It is just meant to share the insight, that we all naturally back the folks who we consider like us, part of the family, part of the tribe, and naturally relegate the other tribe to the status of resource stealing interlopers. There are any number of alterations to this plan. People can on purpose root for the other team...to make it fair, or as part of a greater strategy, or as a member of a greater team...but the principle I think is clear, evolutionarily based, and consistent not only with my own actions, and desires, but often recognizable and understandable, when viewing the actions of others. Like professional team sports. If you are from the N.Y. area the chances are really good that you are a Yankee or a Met or Jet or Giant or Flyer or Ranger or Devils fan. Unless you like soccer and then you might root for Barcelona...but that makes the Red Sox the enemy, if you are a Yankee fan, and chances are, objectively speaking, the players on the Red Sox will have approximately the same amount of good, neutral and bad traits, that the players on the Yankees will have. But when a player's Mom watches the game, I am pretty sure I can guess how she would like to see her son do. Regards, TAR But forgiving people for a bad thing they did, because somebody did a bad thing to them is allowed. We even forgive ourselves for bad stuff we do, if we can come up with a rationalization and a reason for why we did the thing. Justifiable homicide. Our presidents in the last 20 years, whether Republican or Democrat, have signed the order to send a cruise missile or a drone to kill someone. It is quite natural to say...well that was needed, AND it is quite natural for the brother of the guy at the other end of gun, to seek revenge. Ok, Ten Oz, I see your point again. I am not answering the question. Hate is not the opposite. How about the opposite of love is not love. Or using my definition, the opposite of love is when you exclude (passively or actively) an other entity from your feeling of self. Regards, TAR

but would a four digit number be rum ta da rum or da rum ta da?

Ten Oz, I see your point, but I am parsing this, FROM my definition, of love being when you include another in your feeling of self. In that, if I would for some reason, cease to include my daughter in my feeling of self, and instead reject her and say she is not my daughter any more, that would be a 180 degree turn. I would have gone from including her, in my feeling of self, to excluding her from my feeling of self. But I see your complication factor. I could actively hate her and stew over the separation, and repeatedly tell myself how she was wrong and I was right, and withdraw her name from bank accounts and such, WHILE actually very much still considering her part of me. Like an abscessed tooth. So my definition is not ideal, not foolproof, and might need some work. But the idea is that psychologically, I think we include and exclude entities from our feeling of self, and those things we include, we frame as positive things, and those things we exclude, we frame as negative things. The people we have psychologically banished to the netherreaches of our brains, are the ones we demonize, that we think are evil, enemies. Hate comes to mind. Like I hate the KKK or ISIS or a Black Separatist Group that wants to kill police. While there are people on my team, that I include in my feeling of self. People that might not even know it. Like Hilary saying she is for the young women, even if they are not for her. Love and compassion and looking out for somebody, happens when you consider them part of you. Like you would be hurt if they were hurt. Like you would be proud, when they succeed. Like you would weep should they die...there are also people who I would rather left the planet, like ISIS leaders, and KKK Nazis and Black Panthers that hate White Christians and Jews. Here I think my definition works just fine. Those you include in your feeling of self are on your side, friends and lovers. Lovers of life, lovers of America, lovers of freedom, lovers of whatever it is you consider good and proper and part of your being. While those you exclude from your being, the germs that kill, the ideas that destroy, the people that want to kill you, or destroy beauty, or peace or wish to destroy your way of life, are enemies, and banished from your embrace. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, The opposite of crocheting is ripping it out. Regards, TAR as the opposite of loving someone would be ripping their heart out

I am sure somebody's name would wind up ending in Ka Ka Poo Poo... but then again some people are named Richard and have a nick name no better than that.

Ed Earl, Good. You should probably put the variable intonation first though, so the listener would know immediately how many more syllables were coming, and what place the first character is holding. A system that had 7 tonal characteristics that could be considered increasing, with no tonal signal meaning 256 to the zero spot, and the highest tonal signal meaning the 256 to the 7 spot. So with an 8 syllable word. You could pronounce any of 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 unique numbers. That is enough numbers and unique words to give each man woman and child on the planet about two billion of their own private 8 syllable words. (if there were to be any need for a person to have their own number) Of course IP V4 is already around, so we do not need to replace it. But should the need arise... Regards, TAR or should a language need many words to describe each member in a particular set of entities, like organic componds, or genes or stars or galaxies or whatever, there would be a standard, non arbitrary system, that could be conventionalized to suit the need. And each star would have its name, with information concerning its galaxy and section of the galaxy and all built right in. You just say the name of the star, and you know all the information the conventional naming system has built into it. 3 You know, that star that is in the Milky Way, in the 11th section, in the 335th position within the section, that is so and so many lys from the center of the galaxy and so and so many lys from the Earth, that this type of star, with this much mass, and this number of planets, and this rotational period, and this angular velocity... Oh, that one. Yes, I have heard of that one. My sister bought that one, at the star registry and named it George. Doubling, or halving are powerful things, when repeated. Remember the old story where the victor gives the vanquished the choice of either paying 100 gold pieces or placing one grain of wheat on the first square of the chessboard, two on the 2nd, 4 on the 3rd, and so and so, doubling the amount of grains on each square until the squares were accounted for. The vanquished quickly picked the wheat payment, not realizing he had just promised to pay, more wheat than there was in the kingdom.

wtf, I don't remember the words used. Just the drift, that choosing 256 arbitrary characters, would not be the kind of thing people would be likely to remember and use, so nobody is about to come up with such a menagerie of characters. I took it as a challenge, and came up with a sensible system, by wrapping a binary string around a center point, and making one character, out of 8. Regards, TAR

Ed Earl, Thank you. 6 I do think I will eventually come upon a pronunciation system somewhat like what you are proposing. But my goal is not to count to FFFF. Just need to count to FF. 16 times 16, or 256, is all we need. The higher numbers can be written by putting one of the 256 base byte characters in each value position. 256 to the 7, 256 to the 6, 256 to the 5, 256 to the 4, 256 to the 3, 256 to the 2, 256 to the 1, and 256 to the 0 power, for instance could be the positions where 8 one syllable words, would be the incredibly huge number, you were pronouncing. I like your consonant for the four left hand arms of a single character, and diphthong for the right hand arms of the single character. Then each base byte character, would be a single syllable, and the pronounciation of the huge number would be like saying 99999999 instead of ninety nine million, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine. Although it might be good to add a device that would suggest what position you where talking about, with each syllable. Like tone or emphasis or softer or harder sounding of the syllables, or something. Regards, TAR

so my simplification of the world would go like this Think of every and each entity you can, and ask yourself if you think of that entity in the first person, as in I an we, or the second person, as in you, or the third person, as in he,she,it,they. in terms of love, there is reward, pleasure in terms of other emotions, there are other analogies in terms of no love, there is punishment, pain (hatred, fear, loneliness, isolation, despair, or whatever conditions you can get into, when you do not have other entities included in you feeling of self) Ten Oz, I make up a lot of things. Doesn't make them wrong. When I was young, I was playing with some string, putting a loop in a loop. My mom said, "hey, you invented crocheting. Just cause I made it up, does not mean it is subjective. I made it up from words you know the meaning of. Regards, TAR

That is why I made up the definition. So that all the details could parse out in a variety of ways, and the end result would be, is the entity a part of you, or is it second person in nature. In this way, you could ask, what is the opposite of I. And the answers would be the same as we got in this thread. I equals Love equals 1 equals positive equals good You equals indifference equals 0 equals neutral equals ambivolent They equals Hate equals -1 equals negative equals bad

Ed Earl, I like the principle, but you only need one syllable per character, using your system. You are pronouncing two base byte characters. Can you give the phonetic alphabet sounds you intend there? I am not sure if you mean diphthongs or like two syllable vowel sounds. May say like the oi in toilet so I can hear it when I see it. Also, I think its a little messy to have B as a number and B as a sound in the same system, and be associated with a different arm pattern in a different position. Regard, TAR

ten oz, But its is not an arbitrary association I am making between the chemicals, the hormones, the pheromones and endorphins, that all together cause you to fall in love, or to have the emotion that you would call love, toward an other individual, or in the case of chocolate, or oxycodone, toward another entity. There are many other real factors involved as well, things we know and things we are still figuring out. Do you like your mates mother, what kind of job does the mate have, is the thing going to work or does he/she live too far away? Does the mate like your family, etc. The beauty of my definition, is that it does not mention pheromones at all. It just is talking about your feeling of self, which is completely subjective, and therefore complete allowable. Like asking for a pain level between one and ten. You eliminate the problem of someone elses pain tolerance. Whether you include, or exclude another in your feeling of self, is completely up to you. I have no input one way or the other. You do not need my permission, or have to subject yourself to my judgement. You either can or cannot live without the other entity. Your heart is either broken or it is not, when the other is lost and unavailable to you. Whether its mirror neurons firing or not, if you hurt, when the other hurts, you are, at least to that extent, including the other person in your feeling of self. If you behave in a manner that is just as concerned with what chemicals are being engaged in the other, as those engaged in your own head, then it is somewhat obvious, that you include that other person in your existence, in your life, in your feeling of self. It is not a particular recipe of chemicals, that we know about that gets this job done. But we know, for instance, that someone else, even someone we do not love, can imagine what me mean when we say for instance, "my tooth hurts". We have enough similar chemicals, released in our similar brains, for similar evolutionary reasons, that we have a basis for comparison, and a basis for communication. If I talk about a feeling of self, you know exactly what I am talking about, even though you are not me. Regards, TAR you don't have to know even a little, what it feels like, to be TAR TAR does not need to know even a little what it feels like to be Ten Oz But it is obvious that TAR considers himself a self...its in the word himself. Whatever it is that causes you to have a feeling of self, it is that exact thing I am using as a feeling of self. Those other entities, that you include in that feeling...your house, your job, your town, your mate, your children, your country...whatever, has nothing what so ever to do with me, it all on you. But, since I am a human being, and you are a human being, we can communicate certain states of mind to each other, through a common language. Enough, for you to have a general idea of what I might be talking about, when a say any of the words, in the definition. If there is a way you could take a word that would make the definition make no sense, then that is not the way I intend the definition to read. The way I intend it to read, is the way that would make you say " well, I can sort of see that" " that sort of works." Regards, TAR

Robbitybob1, Yes thank you. A smile and a hug is better than a kick in the teeth. Ten Oz, I have not completely thought through the reward complexes that are engaged with really big stuff, where you win on many many important levels. I am thinking in terms of the levels of need fulfillment and satisfaction that various partnerships and friendships and arrangements wind up satisfying. For instance, if you eat an apple, that gives a certain reward. However if you can a couple bushels of apples, you know you will be having applesauce all winter. Both victories, and survival rewards that could easily have been selected for in evolution. That is, if my theory is correct, feeling good, is a reward for doing something right, that will serve to keep you alive and keep your children alive and keep the tribe alive. Having sex feels good, and also serves to get a woman pregnant...historically and evolutionarily. The rpeward for doing it right is multi-layered. Its good in many ways. There is more chemically going on however, than just the endorphins. There are pheromones that make you feel good, where just sitting next to your lover, feels good. As it feels good to hold a child in your arms. So its a different kind of love, when you are talking chocolate, or children...and I can not extend my definition of love "love is when you include an other entity, in your feeling of self" unquestionably to include the love of chocolate, but I suppose to a certain extent, you include a piece of chocolate in your feeling of self, when you take it off the shelf, and put it in your cart. Even drugs, addictive drugs, can be considered part of a person's identity. A heroin addict does not feel herself, until she gets the drug into her body. So much so, that she will steal from her family, hurt her neighbor, maybe even kill someone, for that feeling of victory, that feeling of winning, that chemical reward. I have often said that a drug addict can feel on top of the world, victorious and unbeatable...while lying in their own vomit, penniless and friendless. Speaks to the power of the chemical reward, built into us, for survival purposes, being so powerful and real, that when it is present, even if the actual victory is not, the qualia tells the person that they ARE winning. So with love, there may be reasons for it. Chemical rewards, pheromones and reactions to things, that make you feel good, that have real survival reasons to be the case. And these things, very well could be species wide. The feeling of love, when a baby is in your arms, does not depend on your race, creed, religion, nationality, or the language you speak, or the political party you belong to. Regards, TAR just remembered something my dad and stepmom, both psychologists, told me a few weeks ago, when we were talking about drug abuse (I am a volunteer for citizens against drug abuse, in my town) A drug addict gets a rush (dopamine) just scoring the drug, and going though the motions of injecting it. Even if its not really the drug. The victory to a small extent, is still achieved.

Ten Oz, But there are physically real things that happen when we are rewarded for being good. Endorphins flow, dopamine is realeased. There is a real difference between being good and being rewarded, and being bad, and being punished. A neg rep hurts. A plus feels good. You might be wrong in considering it all relative. It may very well be subjectively experienced, but qualia are not, by definition, imaginary. They are actual. When I get stoned in the square, it is because I actually did something I was not supposed to do. If love is a human emotion, it may indeed be a very objectively real thing that is going on. Regards, TAR

"People most hate what deprives them of what they most need, and since the beloved becomes the focus of enormous emotional needs, the failings of the beloved to meet those emotional needs are naturally closely tied to great hatred." Marat, Was thinking this morning, about love and hate. Interesting that this thread should open back up, now. When I read the Koran, after 9/11 to try and understand, why I was hated by someone who felt my sins were so great that my towers should be brought down, I was touched, by Mohammed's arguments that there can be but one Allah. There really is no other way. We are all connected, in and of the same waking world. Figuratively or literally, there can be but one objective reality. One objective judge of us. One reality from which we emerged, and one reality to which we are responsible. Yet the narrative and Mohammed's argument morphs to an association of the prophet to the will of Allah, like if you are against the prophet(pbuh) you are against Allah. This might work very well for you, if you are a believer, and walk around the stone at some point in your life, and strive, until all the world is for Allah, but does not work out too well if you are a disbeliever, or one who gives Allah associates, or one that charges interest, or worships graven images, or a woman that cheats on her husband, or a person that commits sodomy, etc. Love is when you include another in your feeling of self. This gets complicated, when you imagine that your heart is open to including every living thing in your feeling of self. It turns out, not to be workable, in that some other people, invariably wind up doing it the wrong way, and you have to push them out of your feeling of self, so that you can continue to be right, in the eyes of god (so to speak). Republicans should not hate Democrats, as in the U.S. we are all Americans, and equally hated by people that hate America. Christians should not hate Muslims, as that would cause a world war, and everybody would die. We should all listen to Moses. We should all listen to Mohammed. We should all listen to the Buddha and to Siddhartha. And give each other the benefit of the doubt. Being right about loving the world is good. Loving the world, by excluding part of it, by definition, makes you wrong about loving the world. Personally I think it very OK to protect my way of life from those who would take it away. I understand the arguments against America, that we are greedy, and foul the Earth, and disbelieve in the teachings of Muhammed(pbuh) by being Christian and Jew, and gay, and chargers of interest and purveyors of filth and hedonism and such, but these things are sins against Mohammed's rules, and as such, the only people we have to please, is each other. So how can I justify hating ISIS? Because they are not for me, they are not for you, they are for themselves, with no redeeming social value. I exclude them, from my feeling of self. Republicans on the other hand, I embrace, because I am married to one, I live among them, they have paid my salary in the past, and have fed the poor and built great hospitals and institutions of higher learning through their unsolicited contributions...etc. The KKK I can hate. They have no redeeming social value. I exclude them, from my feeling of self. As I do, mass murderers, and drug lords. Here the opposite of love, is hate. Those I embrace and include in my feeling of self, I love, or like, or support, or emulate. The opposite of this, is those I hate, and actively exclude from my feeling of self. Regards, TAR

Gee, I have already secured three Valentines (three on the right in my profile picture) with this lovely display my daughter got from her boyfriend. Would like to secure just one more, among the good women that grace this board with their intelligence, vision and desires for a better world. Gee, will you be my valentine? Best Regards, TAR