tar

Thread, Well yes, I guess I am left with nothing but repeat thoughts...but maybe my clone can think of something new. Ah yes, one loose end. I know the rules are, that clone is identical in every way, and limitations of technology are not to be entertained, but how about limitations of reality. One objection I still hold is that clone is not identical to original, because he/she is in the other room. If there were a glass between them they would see each other. Immediately they are not the same. Original is conscious of clone in the other room and clone is conscious of original in the other room. If they were to arm wrestle, one would win and one would loose. The clone is "just" born and some of the things original is conscious of, are not present in the room. Maybe the attendants are different, maybe the sun was shining through the window in the original's room and the original was facing south whereas the clone is printed facing North, and there is no window in his room but the one through the wall between. The clone would immediately adjust to this new location and his/her orientation to his surroundings, and this consciousness, this stuff that he/she was conscious of, would be different than that which original was conscious of. His/her consciousness can not be identical in every way, not because of technology, but because of the reality of the situation. Regards, TAR clone has a different starting point, to be conscious of, then did original

StringJunky, Sorry, I didn't get #81. Perhaps this topic is too complicated for me to have used sarcasm. People might think I am saying something that I am trying to say the opposite of. Voodoo dolls are on the magic side of things. I was trying to indicate, that there is something real and continuous about a person, that does not just follow his/her form and is more than the information of which that individual is composed. A person is a particular collection of information. As someone said, an "instance" of that particular collection of information. We are all something like the information that existed in Lucy + Time. But that does not make any of us Lucy. She is dead. That instance of the information, the pattern, the form the structure, died a long time ago, and all we have is her information, not her. We have it two ways. Really in our genes. And really, when we hold her cells in our hand and extract and study her pattern. But the information does not make a consciousness until it makes a living, functioning, particular instance of a human. That instance of a human is at one place and one place only, at one instant and one instant only. That human is unique BECAUSE there is no other entity occupying that particular place at that particular moment. If that person should move, he/she remains unique. There is still no other at the new location. If the clock should tick, the person remains unique, because there is no other in that place at the new instant. I was looking at the scar on my knee, earlier, thinking about what makes a person continuously themselves. I am 61. That scar had plenty of time to shed cells, to grow new cells, to have carbon molecules replaced by other carbon molecules. That scar might not have a single piece of matter in common with the matter around when a third grader's knee hit the ground in a game of tag and was rent open by a piece of glass, but you will have no problem guessing who that third grader was. And everywhere I have gone since, there I was, with my knee with the scar on it. There is definitely a continuation. It is not a "new" me, every instant. It is the same me, with the scar, still alive, the next time the clock ticks. And I do not care if the clone has my scar, and my memories. He is not me. He is at best another instance of me. But he is not THIS instance. Regards, TAR He is somebody else. Clone of TAR. Not TAR. He has his own, unique, consciousness. He is at one place at one time, and it is a different place than here where TAR is. For much of my career I was a Fax machine specialist. But a funny story is, the first time I sent a fax, I was sending a sheet of paper over to the building where they handled parts, and I put the sheet in the top, dialed the number and hit the button. The paper fed into the machine, and came out the bottom. I said "huh, it didn't go". For anyone not familiar with Fax machines, the sheet is not supposed to go anywhere. A facsimile of the information on the sheet will be rendered at a Fax at the other end of the line. on a DIFFERENT sheet That third grader, actually fell down under a big chestnut tree outside that private school in Newark. My clone, would not have to have put those two thoughts together. Some of our memories, are reconstructed. We fill in the blanks, complete the pattern. Consciousness is a mixture of arrangement of neurons, and the pattern of signals passing between them. Both information and circuit carrying the information. I know a fellow who had brain surgery. Did not know who he was and where he was at different points since. But he now has put it all back together and knows exactly who he is and where he is, most times. Amazing for me to think someone was messing around in his head, sucking fluid out, knocking stuff about, and nothing was disturbed. Well things were disturbed, but he has put most of it back together. Filled in the blanks. Reestablished a lot of the important connections. But even when he was non-responsive, I knew my dad was in there, somewhere. What that means exactly, I think is what this thread is about.

"Then you believe you are some distinct life-force of an ethereal nature, somehow inextricably entwined in the molecular structure that makes up you." StringJunky, I believe I am a distinct unique life-force, somehow inextricably entwined in the molecular structure that makes up me, but there is nothing ethereal about it. I do not believe in the "ghost in the machine" I believe in the intricate complexity and fitting nature of the complex molecular structure that makes me up. This is not magic, it is however wonderful, amazing, complex and beautiful and meaningful, stuff. My thinking on this has evolved since I have been reading Critique of Pure Reason, and I base a lot of my thinking on the two base intuitions, that of space and that of time, that we all know exactly what we are talking about when we talk about them, but cannot break them down into any other components. We can use those two ideas to say all sorts of things about all sorts of things, but nobody can tell someone else what the passage of time is like, everybody already knows. Nobody can describe what space is, but everybody already knows. This idea, combined with the fact that our images of the world all have to be happening in our brains, with sight for instance happening when rays of light get turned upside down and backward, are focused on the back of our eyes and signals are sent to the brain through the optic nerve, and we combine the signals from the one eye with the signals from the other eye to decide we are looking at, are conscious of, a tree, out there, not in our brains, tells me that the world itself is part of consciousness. That is why, in this thread, I have used the phrase a couple of times "what we are conscious of". I have a particular model of the world built in my brain, but it is consistent with the world. I have a memory of being in a school building in Newark in 1957, but there really was a school building in Newark in 1957. The building is still there, not a school anymore, but the building would enter your consciousness, should you take a look at it. My point is that the whole world, those portions of it that I have seen, and the stars that I have seen are all in my model of the world, tucked away in the various synapses and chemical and electrical signals and neurons in my brain. You can hypothetically reproduce all these memories, and the order in which they occurred, and put all these memories in a machine in the next room, that looks exactly like me, feels exactly like me, walks exactly like me, and quacks exactly like me, but I, have not left the body in the first room, and if you pulverize that body (the one in the first room), you would be guilty of murder. Regards, TAR And you would have murdered TAR. I don't know who that imposter in the other room is. Regards, TAR If I made a doll that looked like you and stuck a needle in its eye, would you feel the pain? Hey, my stomach hurts, who did that!

Thread, Fun, but not done. That which consciousness is, is still not agreed upon, completely. It just occurred to me, that the "pattern" that was scanned of the original, and sent to the 3d printer, was, at some point, neither in the original or the clone, but in the apparatus in between. If a person was just information, then this person would exist as the original, as the information in between, and as the clone. A simple wiring adjustment and this information could be sent to 1000 3d printers. Assuming that our technology was precise enough and complete enough that all 1000 would work, I would say that NONE of them are me. My consciousness has no way to travel through the wires and the air, to each of the clones. The situation we are speculating upon is already provided for us, (as someone, I forget who, already suggested) if we think about what a child is. Regards, TAR

"I'm always trying to reconcile consciousness and physics. This is a thought experiment that scrutinises the relationship between our experience of the universe and the idea that consciousness is just neurons firing in a predicatable way due to their position in space (and their connection to each other)." Yoseph, I think in the experiment, it is important to note that the clone is printed out at a different position in space, than the original. This may be crucial to note, because of what a conscious person is conscious of. The time of day the season of the year, which way he/she is oriented to the Earth and so on. If for instance the original is subject to a strong magnetic field to read the position of all the quarks through some sensors, and this same magnetic field is not present at the printer location, then the cells and position of things in the clone, will not be the same as in the original. Regards, TAR Thread, Original has a certain position in the universe and a certain orientation that can not be exactly replicated in the clone. It is like my trivial objection to the idea of a doppelganger existing somewhere in the universe. If each of the doppelgangers were to suddenly point at their doppelganger, they would have to point in a different direction than their doppelganger was pointing in, making them exactly not identical in every detail. One would be pointing toward the Milkyway, the other would be pointing away from it. Regards, TAR

Delta1212, I don't think we are disagreeing. Are we? Are we talking about the 10 year old you or the clone you? The 10 year old you has the same history as the original, present you (up to when you were 10 years old). The clone you, has no history as a human, he/she just was born. Regards, TAR

MigL, The old you is history, but you still have your history. Regards, TAR

Spyman, I think I like your thinking the best, so far, but I don't see why you have to submit to the idea that you are ultimately just information. There is as well the consideration you mentioned of your history. Heisenburg aside, every quark and isotope, every carbon chain and eyelash has been put into the exact arrangement as the original, except you cannot transfer the history of each of the quarks, and each of the molecules. These have to be unique, for each quark, for each molecule of carbon. Suppose for instance, the 3d printer on Mars ran out of a certain isotope of carbon, and a horse used at a riding stable on Mars was killed, to extract the required isotope, to complete your copy. Original on Earth, may have eaten a few cows, but no horse we know of ever died to place that isotope of carbon in that particular cell of original's pinky, as did die to place that atom in the clone's left pinky. Suppose original always loved horses, and was ashamed that clone's existence required the death of one. At this point, even before everybody learned what was going on, instantly, at the point of reproduction, original and clone are not the same person. They are different body/brain/heart groups, with different histories. One was born of woman on Earth, the other was born of 3D printer on Mars. Two different folks. If one traveled to the other's planet and they stood, one in front of the other, one would have nobody in front of them, and the other would be looking at the back of a very familiar looking head. Well maybe not that familiar, I rarely have seen the back of my head. So I would disagree that you are just information. I would suggest you are particular, unique information, with a history, a present location, and a future. Regards, TAR On a different note. What about the spark of life? How do we know if the clone will be alive, just because all the parts are in place. I have seen the faces of a few loved one's in their coffins, and they looked as if they were asleep, but they were not actually working anymore. Like Frankenstein's monster, how do get the clone "started"?

Thread, Still not smoking. Had a couple powerful craves over the weekend and I wanted to share an insight that might help somebody understand why they want to pick up a cigarette. This is just a guess, but it makes sense to me based on the idea of dopamine being a natural part of our systems, and central to a number of seek/reward complex mechanisms in our brains that spur us to take one action rather than another. The wiki article on dopamine laid out two types of dopamine in the brain, one that inhibited unwanted action and one that facilitated desired action. There was also mention of dopamine made in parts of the body outside the brain, that could not cross the brain/blood barrier that facilitated certain activity elsewhere in the body. Insight was, that the dopamine complex in the brain, sets up sort of a seek/find situation where the "right" action is rewarded. My guess would allow this same mechanism to be behind question/answer, seek/find, plan/acheive, itch/scratch, teasing/reaching orgasm, getting the joke, solving the riddle, and other similar, species wide seek/find type of activities. But here is where the insight is related to this thread. Smoking a cigarette is a cheat. It is a way to simulate the find portion of the complex, the reward, without having to do the seeking. Ultimately this is not any more satisfying then actually completing the puzzle, but you can pretend you have completed the puzzle while you are doing the puzzle, by taking a drag. The two times I had a powerful crave, were one, when I was thinking about how I would feel to have a job again, and two, when I conceived of a course of investigation that would be rewarding, but it would take a lot of work and steps to reach the goal. In both cases, I think the thought of the nicotine, making it past the blood/brain barrier and attaching to the nicotine receptors and releasing the reward dopamine (without having to wait for the actual find) was seductive. I was able to not go that route, in both cases by telling myself, that if I wanted the answer to that particular question, I would have to actually find the answer, and the drag of the cigarette would be a false or cheating way to get the reward. Thus, the insight was that there is a reason why smokers in the middle of solving a complicated equation might chain smoke, to keep faking the reward of solving it. Not a bad strategy, except for the cost (in health, money, stink free air for your loved ones, personal freedom and control of yourself.) Better to just look at a picture of your loving wife in front of the blooming cherry tree, take a sip of sugared ice tea, get a little interim dopamine, and continue to work the problem. Regards, TAR Might be why we like to break down big jobs into small packages. So we can keep completing stuff, all the way through the job. I know when I mow the lawn I go around the perimeter first, so the next round is shorter, and I play a game of trying to estimate, based on the height of the grass, and the distance around, how many rounds I can go before having to be by the compost pile to empty the bag.

jeremyjr, I do not think clay moves in the same way hollow plastic tubes, filled with air to a near circular cross section do, but if I touch the ends of the one together, or the ends of the other together, I can make a torus, in both cases. This thread is primarily about topographical configuration. I have challenged you to provide a frame that shows the object in a configuration that I can not duplicate with the same shaft of clay, without changing its surface's integrity. In each of my figures, you can follow the simulated tube, from one end to the other. In each of your frames, you can follow an imaginary tube from its one end to its other end, making the appropriate loops and twists. You can tie a long rubber/plastic tube into the same knots and twist it into the same configurations as you can a clay shaft of the same length and diameter, without breaking the surface of either one. This thread is secondarily about established science being unable to recognize reality, when it is staring established science in the face, so established science should look at the world instead through the eyes of "real science", which states that impossible things are happening in the sky, all the time, and everybody but Jeremyjr and his band of outlaws, are too scared and stupid to notice. Does demanding that impossible things be recognized as possible, make any kind of sense to you? If all us misguided folk, that demand that impossible stuff not happen, by definition, were to suddenly all become outlaws, then who would you rail against? Who then could you point at, to be wrong, and you right? Your position on the secondary (but underlying) theme of this thread is changeable, because it is only in your take of what appeared in the sky, that we differ. I could come to your take, and say "Oh yeah Jeremyjr. I see it now. That is a fantastic and weird, impossible, unexplainable thing we've got here, that no physics, material science, meteorological knowledge, geometry or human observation ever comes even close to being able to explain. " Or you could come to my take, and say "oh, yeah, its probably a piece of garbage, that would explain what I saw." Really Jeremyjr, you are going to go the "you're stupid" route, just to avoid going the "oops" route? If your fly is open, or you have a piece of toilet paper on your shoe, or a big hunk of food stuck in your teeth and somebody points it out, the usual response is that you correct the situation. Odd to say that its the new style and everybody else is stupid not to pull down their fly, stick some toilet paper on their shoe and wedge some hunk of food between their teeth. I know you cannot respond to me, like you would want because it would instantly lock this thread, so I am sort of like a boy, teasing a dog on a chain here, but I think you still have a small chance to redeem yourself, if you can provide an honest sequence of the sighting that I can not simulate with the clay. By the way, did you see this thing, or did you get the frames off a site, to where you cannot provide an honest, untampered with sequence? I did not go looking for your other thread. I would rather you just respond to my particular objections, here. I am calling you out to the street, for a frame by frame showdown. You show me what you saw, and I will show you how a tube of clay can get into the same geometrical shape, without breaking the laws of physics. Regards, TAR

Jeremyjr, Your additional frames in post 19 are misleading. Are they intentionally misleading? Did you select them to give the “appearance” of fantastic, impossible transition? There are three different backgrounds, a dark blue, a light blue and a gray. The object is largest in the dark blue frames and smallest in the light blue frames and medium size in the gray background pictures. This indicates, that if we are looking at a mundane plastic tube, floating away in the breeze, the order of the frames should be dark blue, grey, light blue. In addition, some of the configurations found on the first row, are repeated on the second row. For instance look at frame 1 and frame 10, frame 3 and frame 11, frame 4 and frame 12. I just noticed another indication that this evidence is rigged. Look at frame 6 and frame 16. The “diaperbag” is in the same configuration in each of these shots. (and the background is a different color and the size is different) So Jeremyjr, please give us some frames, in order, with the time between the frames, so we can properly see how this object changed its configuration, in the sky. Regards, TAR A defined sequence of unmodified shots from the same device would be preferred. either that, or retract your claim Jeremyjr. It just occurred to me, that you are a child, that thinks he is so smart, that he can "fool" his parents. You are not smarter than me. (well you may be smarter, but you are not "fooling" me in this case)And there are plenty of folks on this board, smarter than me, and there are plenty of folks throughout the history of science that are smarter, or certainly as smart as the smartest on this board. Take your garbage sighting and... Regards, TAR At least, if you want to be a scientist, make an attempt to be an honest scientist. That is an absolute requirement. Falsifying the evidence is a no no. Perhaps your misdirection is not intentional and you still think you saw some fantastic display in the sky. In that case I apologize for calling you a liar, but I would strongly encourage you to reevaluate what it is, you think you saw. When I see your evidence, I see floating garbage, when you see your evidence you see a fanstastic, impossible happening. One of us is wrong about what the evidence shows, and more things about what we consider reality to be like, would have to change inorder for your take to be correct, than for my take to be correct, so please consider that and open your mind to the mundane explanation we have presented.

Jeremyjr, "But no balloon in fly will be able to that." So have you tried to falsify this claim? Being unable to falsify it would increase its chances of being a workable statement, but if you could falsify it, how would you go about falsifying it? Have you taken a long shaft of clay of constant length and diameter and seen if you could simulate frame 5,6 and 19 from post #19? Have you considered if there is any example of a plastic tube of the right length and diameter and color to be consistent with your sighting, manufactured for any purpose on the Earth that could have gotten loose and floated in the sky like a balloon? If you could obtain such a length of plastic Bernoulli bag that was consistent with the diameter and color and length of your sighting, you could release it, at the appropriate altitude on a similar weather day, as your sighting, at the same time of day, and photograph it from the same angle, and see if it acts anything like what you saw. If it did look something like what you saw, you might have found a way to falsify your claim. Just making the claim is not enough. You have to give falsifying the claim an honest effort. Regards, TAR

Mordred, I don't know enough to slip into teaching mode. I was more slipping into sarcastic, see for yourself, debunk mode. Just saying, "look, I can make those shapes with a single shaft of clay", so it is possible that a tube of plastic, floating in the wind could make those shapes and no laws of physics or geometry would need to be broken. And I was trying to be informally helpful, like making a little discreet motion to inform somebody that they had toilet paper on their shoe, and hoping they would just see it and remove it. Regards, TAR

Jeremyjr, You are defending your thesis, and I understand that, but you are being too hard on the science that has already been done on this planet and shared with others and tested and retested to the point of being established science. If the object you saw was not a diaper bag, it would have shown itself before or since and been noticed and investigated. I did do science, I built a model of a diaperbag and formed it into the shape in one of your frames. I saw this same shape in all your frames and could have made any of those shapes, with that single length of clay. I titled my pictures "obvious spaceship" and "obvious worm" and I thought you would see that it actually was an obvious diaperbag, that you photographed. Even if it is not a diaperbag, my theory fits the facts, more closely than your theory does, and you should at least get a length of clay and twist it into all the shapes, of every frame, and see that it would be possible for a long tube of plastic, floating on the breeze, to create the display that you saw. True things, are true in more than one way, and usually for more than one time. That being said, I would not negate the possibility of Russian crafts or government experiments, or hoax planning teenagers, or travelers from Atlantis, or from a moon of Jupiter appearing in our skies. I even saw some unexplained lights fueling up over a high tension power line in the country in PA when I was 18, so I am not adverse to the possibility of UFOs being identified in surprising ways. But in this case, I think we can explain your sighting, as floating garbage, and we need not impugn the whole scientific community to back a far fetched figuring. Regards, TAR

Endy0816, But "hardwired" is not exactly what any organism is. Most every organism makes decisions. Moves toward the light, moves toward the prey, learns the shape of its home, etc. There needs to be a mechanism, an arrangement by which learning would be done over not learning. There is, in a general sense a thing that live things have, that dead things don't. A desire to survive. This needs to be explained in some manner, a little stronger than chance. Chance might work for non-living things, but there is some intention, or as you say, there is a "try" that living things do, that perhaps a rock, rolling down the hill, does not do. Yet we have about 7 billion examples of lumps of carbon compounds, excercising their wills. There must be a way that minerals growing crystals morphed into a complex that "wanted" to repeat itself, that wanted to repeat the pattern, and make it exactly NOT random, but intentionally done. Something about the bacteria that became the mitochondria that was mentioned in your link indicates an intentional effort to survive. Something a little stronger than a hardwired crystal growth. Besides, there has to be a reasonable staged evolution, that includes the mechanisms that provide for intentional behavior early on in the evolutionary story. I think chemicals that set up a situation, where a repeating pattern is "preferrred" over random chaos, are excellent candidates to provide this "desire", this will to live. Something to explain when and where and how and why intention emerged. Regards, TAR

Physica, You are right, its wooly, but its one guess based on another. The basic premise or guess, is that survival of the fittest is not enough. There needs to be a reason to survive, or a pattern would have no particular reason to continue in the first place. More of a survival of that which has a reason to exist. The way I was taught evolution, it was sort of a random chance mutation thing, and if the complex resulted in a survivable pattern it survived, and if the mutation had no survival value, it was not selected for. What I want to add, if it is not already understood this way, is that "wanting to survive" could be thought of, as a selected for trait. Regards, TAR or survival of that which fits

Endy0816, Thanks for the link. I did not know all those things about dopamine. This in particular was sort of counter-indicative to my guess. Kent Berridge and other researchers have argued for a distinction between reward, which is defined in terms of motivation, and pleasure, which is defined in terms of emotional expression. A simpler way of describing this is as a distinction between "seeking" and "liking". "Seeking" occurs when an animal, given access to some stimulus such as food, executes some type of active behavior in order to acquire it. "Liking" occurs when an animal shows expressions of happiness or satisfaction while consuming something. There is considerable evidence that the dopamine system is part of the brain system that mediates seeking but not part of the system that mediates liking. Drugs that increase the effects of dopamine (most notably stimulants such as methamphetamine or cocaine) produce corresponding increases in seeking behaviors, but do not greatly alter expressions of pleasure. Conversely, opiate drugs such as heroin or morphine produce increases in expressions of pleasure but do not greatly alter seeking behaviors. Animals in which the VTA dopamine system has been rendered inactive do not seek food, and will starve to death if left to themselves, but if food is placed in their mouths they will consume it and show facial expressions indicative of pleasure.[24] Regards TAR Except, not completely counter indicated, as there is the two types of dopamine and one acts to increase action and one to inhibit activity. Together they do result in an organism taking survival actions.

the advent of language in humans gave us the ability to pass along survival strategies outside the genes, but we had to have reason to survive before language, or we would not have been around to develop language The desire to survive could well be required, inorder to.

The speculation is based on the idea that doing things related to survival successfully, results in a chemical reward in the brain. Only individuals successfully completing acts necessary for survival will survive. These individuals, that survived either survived by chance, or survived by doing something to aid their survival. Of the group that did something to aid their survival, there would have to be a reason, other than chance, that they would do this thing. The speculation goes, that this additional reason is that they "wanted" to do the thing. They had a reason to repeat an act that resulted in the survival of their parents and them and their tribe, and this reason was not chance. It would have to be something that could be passed on to the next generation as a complex that had a particular purpose. A reward chemical for eating, would increase the organisms desire to eat. A reward chemical for remembering where the blueberries grew, would increase the organisms ability to find the blueberries. A reward chemical released whenever actions and thoughts resulted in "good outcomes" as pertains to survival, would be extant in individuals of the species that survived. Individuals without the ability to find and enjoy their food, would possibly die of starvation. The speculation is that the ability to experience pleasure, is passed on, as a survival trait. Regards, TAR My wife was touring a vast and diverse garden, well kept and prolific, and my wife was surprised, after carefully tending her own garden plants, when the guide, who was also a caretaker, roughly "planted" a plant, by kicking out a hole, dropping the plant in sideways, kicking some dirt over its roots and stepping on the root area to pack the soil down. When my wife looked at him in terror, he said "The plant wants to survive. It will do fine."

Thread, this thread is dead This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by physica. View it anyway? Is the only reply. And I have a rule that I do not post in threads that I have not read. Since the only post other than the OP is by physica who has never once had anything constructive or interesting to say to me, I conclude, this thread is dead. Regards, TAR If, however, by some odd chance, Physica's post has any interesting or constructive aspects to it, if somebody would like to quote them, and comment on them, I will see that. But I will not be clicking the View it anyway button. (Emotional comment deleted.) So, this thread is dead.

We cross posted.

That this "agree to believe" is the main component of Karma and Reincarnation, is evidenced by Alan's "deciding" he does not like the idea, and others voicing their opinions on what would be a good afterlife, and what would be a bad one. I do not negate the power and truth of human agreement, nor the value of "believing" in the same guiding principles. However none of us can decide to believe in gravity or not, because its actually here to witness. We can however decide to exist in the loving embrace of Jesus, or to exist in a higher plane of existence, or to improve our behavior so we gain a more pleasant status, "next time". The fact that "we can decide" makes it our internal, spiritual decision, and not a matter controlled by an outside source, or rule, other than human judgement and human agreement.

Dimreeper, Again, the only point you are making, is mine. If you have to read the material of the sages, or of PeterJ, to understand the "truth" of rebirth, then the material is not of the sort that I could see for myself, by just sensing and modeling the world. Anyhow, my point is that the world is absolutely true. And PeterJ has specifically claimed its illusion. Any material he has to offer is tainted with a misunderstanding of human perception, human ability and capability. And I have definite ideas about how to separate what is stuff of dreams and what is the real world that we internalize, through our senses, and what it is that we say about the world, that we build an internal analog model of, in the synapses and structures of our body/heart/brain group. My "material" is different than PeterJ's. If I don't agree with his take, reading the trailer, why would I consider it a mistake to miss the movie. I would rather just discuss the points of disagreement, out in the open. If you cannot discover the meaning of rebirth, on your own, without PeterJ's take, then rebirth has no meaning. Regards, TAR If I understand the meaning of rebirth, without PeterJ's take, and we are just calling rebirth something different than the other calls it, and it is a thing that everybody can witness on their own, without any guidance, then it is a real thing, that is logical and sensible. But if THIS is the case, I still have no need to read PeterJ's blog, to witness and understand, and comprehend the obvious. But if PeterJ's Truth can only be had by listening to a particular person's take, with no objective, peer reviewable, waking world, actual inspectable, real world stuff...then I have a strong suspicion that it is not a crucial, actual, sensible and logical, part of this universe we share, and its existence is ONLY in human stories, hopes and dreams, and its truth is dictated only by human agreement to believe in the thing.

Jeremyjr, Saw a show a few weeks ago where the host blew up a "diaper bag", a long plastic tube, closed at one end, with a single breath, using air pressure. The bag was white, but perhaps they are made in black or brown, as well. Tell me the EC number of these(this) figures(figure.) Regards, TAR or maybe the white bag used to be full of it

Lady you are prime. If you want to multiply shake your head 2 times. If we just don't add up, shake my head 97 times.