sunspot

Shouldn't the production of small polar molecules like water, stemming from stars, (animated with solar radiation) contribute a percentage of the CMBR? For example, the solar wind is full of charged particles.

Microwaves represent a nonionizing radiation, that influences molecular motions such as ion migration or dipole rotations, but not altering the molecular structure.http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1999/71_04_pdf/fini.pdf#search='microwaves%20and%20chemistry' The data for water at 0.2cm wavelength or the maxima for the background cosmic microwaves is at http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/MolSpec/frequencies.pl?triatomics=H2O&lowerfreq=150&upperfreq=200&units=GHz. The wavelength used for microwaves ovens is set by standard at 12.3cm (same ref as top paragraph). The background microwave radiation maxima is hotter than that, being at 0.2 cm This suggests a higher level microwave source such as could stems from the perimeter of stars and which can be in tuned with small molecules including water.

Maybe there is a wall between the conscious and unconscious minds. In a normal person the wall prevents dream voices from reaching the threshold of consciousness. With a schizophrenic, the wall is more permeable allowing these dream voices to reach the level of consciousness. What may be going on in the unconscious mind is a reorganization of memories or a lowering of unconscious potential. During dreams, the power or will of the ego is reduced and external distraction minimized. This may allow more consciousness of unconscious processes. Another explanation is the ego returning to the unconscious mind during sleep.

For example, would someone who likes to cut themselves be considered natural human behavior? Would starving oneself until death be considered natural human behavior? Is war natural human behavior? Is beastiality natural human behavior since dogs hump human legs all the time? If we look at the animals this may give up a basic data set from which one could build and extrapolate natural human behavior. For example, humans are omnivores. Human do not have a fixed breeding season. Humans are social animals although isolated individuals are also possible. Humans care for their young well into adult life of their children.

UFO's and aliens are examples of modern mythology. The ancient Greeks were convinced of Zeus and the rest of their gods in much the same way. In both cases, these were projections from within, stemming from what the psychologist Carl Jung called the collective unconscious. A projection is sort of an unconscious movie projecting through the eyes overlaying reality. In modern lingo, the collective unconsious is similar to personality software that underlies the human personality and is common to all humans. Its collective nature is why mythology can become a collective projection or many can see a very similar movie.

In a less technical and more practical sense, one might notice how layers of one's unconscious mind are revealed as one gets more and more drunk. When sobber, the social mask covers these layers from others and even from oneself. As one goes deeper often an alter ego will appear. Maybe try to coast at your best layer.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, all of what you said is not BS. There are two types of intellectuals; one that can only repeat the ideas of others and the other who thinks for himself. The first is the safe path, the second opens one up to criticism from those who take the first path. Sorry Bascule, I enjoy the checks and balances. I generate too many ideas to think them all through and I appreciate even the criticism.

Is it coincidental that microwave ovens work on water and that water is the basis for life and that the universe has a background radiation that is tuned to the needs of the primary component of life, i.e., water?

What is sort of interesting is that this quantum change was also practical evolution. In other words, there is no evidence that suggests that all land animals stemmed from one mutation. Yet the genetic change led to a practical and logical advancement of life. This suggests a logical potential pulling evolution toward a logically progressing future. The question becomes, what is more fundamental than DNA and genes? The answer is the hydrogen proton. Without the hydrogen proton, the DNA would be useless as a template material. With the hydrogen proton, DNA and chromosomes become active and will define configurational potentials based on the hydrogen proton. The proton potential continues to rise into the future.

When I mentioned the imagination manipulating the hypothalamus DNA, I was not saying that the DNA was altered in genetic content or that genes were shuffled, rather imagination led to the unpacking of some of the DNA, or in the very least, increased the transcription rate stemming from certain genes on the DNA within the hypothalamus. If it did not, there would only be a fixed amount of chemical output associated with the hunger instinct, and one could not get hungrier by thinking about food. That is how cells work. An external potential is met with the needed genetic expression to deal with the potential entering the cell. The slow boat and fast boat was only an analogy. The body appears more conservative and has not change anywhere near as fast as human behavior. Human behavior, if often attributed to genes, i.e, smart gene, dumb gene, etc. The genes associated with brain software that underlies human behavior are changing faster than those associated with the body. All one has to do is dig up an ancient person from 10,000 years ago and compare their bodies and extent of their behavior to modern humans. The bodies have not changed much but behavior sure has. One alternate way to interpret the rapidly advancing behavior is that humans, apart from culture, are much less than with culture. In other words, culture might be an intellectual/material prosthesis device that creates the illusion of higher levels of behavior. If we took away culture, maybe the 10,000 year old is actually as, or more advanced, since he had to do almost everything on his own. How many can keep their car running without culture doing it for them. I still believe that the cultural prosthesis has pushed the human mind making it easier and easier for each generation to perform fundamental and intermediate tasks. If innate behavior stems from DNA, than the DNA must have been alterred

I would like to begin a post to get everyone's opinion as to what constitutes natural human instinct and behavior. Humans are different than animals in that we can act both inside and outside the range of observed animal instinct and behavior. Some of this extended behavior may be natural human, while other aspects of this extended hehavior might be unnatural human behavior.

The Jungian idea of the collective unconscious describes things within the psyche that are common to all humans. As such, any human, theoretically, should be able to map the collective unconscious and this data should be reproduceable by other humans. Between ego consciousness and the collective unconscious is the personal unconscious. If one observes at this upper level, I agree, such observations would lead to endless variety because they are more personal than collective. What is needed to make it reproduceable science is two fold; first one needs to get past the personal unconscious so it can be conscious enough to be factored out of the equation. Jung and most orientations of Psychology do a good job at showing the nature of the personal unconscious so it can be made conscious and factored out of the analysis. Next, one needs to allow the collective phenomena to express and differnetiate itself, naturally, without the power of suggestion, and without too much conscious inhibition. In other words, one must be willing to dissociate their personality, so that their rational consciousness (left side of the brain) can observe all the irrational collective unconscious phenomena (right side of the brain). When I was younger and more fearless, I did such research on myself. I spent the first several years going to therapy and self actualizing so my personal unconsious would be factored out of the equation. After that, I read the collective works of Jung and attempted to extend Jungian psychology by becoming both the scientist and the experiment. In retrospect, I would not do it again nor would I recommend it to anyone unless they had a psycho baby sitter. I had to escape on my own. The many years of experiences are outside the range of the superfiscial science aproaches, making it hard to discuss and share my results. The difficulty is not mine but the bias of tradition and a very real fear. In a round about way I have attempted to summarize what I have learned from the inside out. The one thing that did happen was that I learned how to develop an interactive rapport with the right hemisphere allowing me to make some practical use of the 3-D or spatial memory grid.

Something is this interesting is that microwave radiation is at the energy of the vibrational/rotational energy level of molecules. This is why it is used to cook our food, i..e, works on the water. Has anyone considered that this coincidence may have a rational reason? I can think of a number of such reasons. 1) maybe the microwaves stemmed from primal hydrogen molecules. 2) maybe the terminal product stemming from stars (small molecules) plays or played a role in its production especially with stars everywhere. 3) maybe dark matter, in part, is simply molecular matter generated since the beginning emitting microwave radiation. 4) maybe there is a natural coordination of universe evolution where the microwaves of the early expansion is there to play a role with respect to chemical matter.

Putting aside the why for the time being, the one thing that moving to the land did do was increase the amount of oxygen that an animal could uptake per unit of time and per air absorption surface area. The main benefit, was more compact lifeforms that could support larger brains; increased the brain mass to body mass ratio. Whether the chicken came before the egg; migration to land occurred leading to direct air breathing or whether evolution in the ability to breath on land led to the migration onto land, the net result was quantum evolutionary progress.

I agree with you that many unconscious processes are hidden and can have an impact of perception. This is true for both empiricism and autophenomenology. If it was not true for empiricsm, there would only be one orientation of psychology and only one interpretation of the empirical data. If empiricists payed more attention to their own unconscious processes there would not be so many ways to view the same data. As far as autophenomenology, if one takes this approach long enough personal psychology is less of a problem since that data will get redundant enough to be seen through. Below that outer layer of the onion is collective human phenomena. This is where the good stuff is. Carl Jung did a lot of work mapping these software and correlating them to collective human thought such as mythology and religion. These tell us a lot about the collective human psyche.

I am saying that consciousness is connected to brain function and is in a sense confined to what the brain is and can do. However, creativity shows that consciousness can extrapolate something new from what is hardwired in the brain, to create new memories that were not originally there. In that respect, it is more than the sum of its parts. My fluid energy model of consciousness satisfies both criteria at the same time; fixed neuron firing creating a fluid energy matrix that has some degree of potential beyond the fixed. With respect to your second point about consciousness able to move around the brain, this is based on the existing correlation between brain function and brain location. That data was generated by having people do things and see where in the brain consciousness is being focused, and/or by using electrical current to trigger parts of the brain to see what the result it. This ability to move around the brain and to center itself in particular areas of the brain, rseems to imply that consciousness is different than fixed brain matter, to be able to create a willful disturbance within any particular region. I attributed this to consciousness being energy based as a result of background neuron firing, with this same brainwide background firing providing an energy matrix for its mobility. With respect to the first comment, the model is actually more based on Jungian psychology. He studied collective human phenomena, which I saw as the best starting point for studying consciousness; consciousness should be collective and generic for all humans. I liked Jung best because he did not limit human motivation to just pleasure, desire, fear, pain or whatever. Rather, his theory of the archetypes includes all these levels of human motivation and in that respect encompasses/includes the more narrowed orientations. Regarding the point about empiricsm, this is true if ones approach to conscious research is from the outside. If one begins from the inside and watches what goes on within oneself can see a more logical order. In other words, the brain and consciousness does not have to be a black box. If one opens the black box and looks inside one can get direct data, since every human brain should generate the same basic generic data. As an analogy, one can make an empirical correlation of a toothache by watching others. Or one can have a toothache and draw reality conclusions.

One of the structural flaws with psycho-theory is connected to the lack of concensus understanding of what consciousness is. This should be the foundation of the mind since it is what interfaces the personality to the brain and to the biochemistry of the brain. Without such basic understanding one can not begin any theory at step one. This might explain why most consciousness theory is empirical instead of rational. In all due respect, empirical is useful because it lets the dice fall where they may without requiring concensus understanding of consciousness. I would like to attempt to deduce the nature of consciousness from my own studies and observations. The first thing one would expect is that consciousness should require a power source to be able define free will. The most likely source of energy is connected to brain waves, i.e., background firing of neurons. For example, if one is considered brain dead there are no observed brain waves and consciousness is gone (both conscious and unconscious mind lose power). Sleep will cut off or reduce the power supply to the ego, but unconscious processes still occur. This suggests a threshold brain power level to fully support ego consciousness. Studies have shown, that specific regions of the brain have specific consciousness function. The ego or conscious mind, can willfully move around the brain and cause certain regions of the brain to show higher neural activity. For example, one can focus their attention on the eyes or imagination and shift the primary area of the brain that is being used. The brain waves are brain-wide and therefore can integrate the entire brain via an ionic/chemical/energy matrix. This brain wide matrix provides a reasonable way for consciousness to move anywhere within the brain, focus the energy potential and induce neural activity in very specific regions of the brain. Beyond the generic background neuron firing of brain waves, the neural memory is also very specific to the individual. One would logically expect that the universal generic background firing is wired into the memories associated with personal memory. In other words, with the power supply of consciousness brain wide and providing energy needed for integrated brain operation, it is reasonable that the neural based power supply would extrapolate personal memory from this generic base, making consciousness both generic and personal in nature. We are all collective human and unique at the same time. Another thing we know is that the creation of short term memory and emotional valence stem from the limbic system located in the center of the brain. The result that appears is that each aspect of personal memory will have specific emotional valence. This may be how the brain integrates similar memory. For example, if one feels hunger, consciousness will use the whole brain, but will narrow its memory focus around the needs of the hunger potential. The same can be said for fear, love, etc.,This observation suggests the personal memory is stored as layers, where each layer is loosely organized around specific emotional potential. There are two logical ways to activate layers of memory. This can occur via the blood supply and via the cerebral spinal fluid. With both interfaced to the entire brain, they can both cause universal brain potentials. This fires the specific personal layer of memory while also alterring the universal background firing power supply of consciousness. The coordination of the two allows coordinated power and memory focus for the ego. The ego can then move around the brain, within the energy/memory matrix, and use any part of the brain to satisfy the potential. The ego can not only animate structured routines of behavior, but it can also extrapolate memory. For example, one can get ready for work or school in a mindless routine way. One can also reason from simple premises to create complex relationships. The latter implies the ego being up potential of the memories associated with the premises, inducing temporary fluid extrapolation of memory leading to more integrated hardwired neuron branching organization. The former suggest the ego being down potential of the memory organization. Being down potential, it can drain the memory, so to speak, causing specific neuron firing, that becomes structured, i.e, loses branching from all the orginal possibilities. The conclusion stemming from these two observations is that the background firing of the brain is not only providing energy for consciousness but the energy output also defines a wide range of memory potentials. This allows the ego to alter its potential set point. This alternation is related to the ego being able to willfully move between memory layers (different emotional potentials), thereby being up or down potential of an adjacent layer. For example, one can get hungry and begin to think about food, but practical constraints may require putting it off. The ego can shift its set point away from the potential of the hunger layer, altering the brain potential. The last aspect of consciousness functioning is connected to what Carl Jung called the archetypes of the collective unconscious. In modern terms these are personality software common to all humans. These can be viewed as software wired into the background firing of brain waves that are focued by specific brain potentials. For example, falling in love, creates personality dynamics that are collective human, beyond what the ego can create for itself, i.e., the whirlwinds of love. The result is that the dynamics of ego consciousness is both collective and individual, with the individual an extrapolation from the collective. The ego's ability to alter or focus potential allow it to narrow its collective/personal extrapolation while gaining collective energy/propensity from a particular archetype or from the entire range of archetypes. Specialization can narrow the range while generalization expand the range of personality software used.

I agree that both software and hardware problems can exist. Often it is a combination of the two. But it is not often clear which came first, the chicken or the egg. For example, depression can stem from events within one's life. Dwelling on the events/problem for too long can then create a thought/emotional loop that will alter the chemical environment of the brain, perpetuating the loop (subroutine). Anti-depression drugs can be very useful by altering the chemical environment of the brain so that the chemical/feeling aspect of the loop broken. The thought aspect can then slowly decay due to the alterred emotional/chemical environment. On the other hand, if the person's external environment reinforces the depression loop, one may form a drug addiction to avoid reactivating the depression. These cases may also need to be addressed with therapy. There are cases where the biochemistry of the brain is the source of the emotional/thought loop. In these cases, altering the brain potential with drugs will be very effective and often permanent because they will address the underlying source of the disorder, since the thought aspect is more of an affect than a cause.

One useful analogy is connected to spyware and viruses and computer operation. If one's computer has these things, the hardware may still work fine and appear to show no outward signs of problems, but the operating system will act strangely. If one only looks for outward hardware changes (chemical changes) as the basis for psychological evaluation, than viruses (disorders) may not appear to exist, even though they are in the computer doing harm (phenomena similar to software affecting the personality). I would like to give an extreme example of competing software causing problems. Picture a young farm boy brought up in the bible belt. At 18 he joins the marines to fight for his country. The marines attempt to program him into a fighting machine who can deal with hardship, etc.. On the day of his first battle, he freezes. Although, he and the marines thought he was reprogrammed, his early bible behavior software was still working in the unconscious background and created an inhibition to killing. Alternately, he could have done well in battle and had a righteous kill, but days later he begins to show signs of battle fatigue. The bible behavior software was only repressed consciously, but at some unconscious level it begins to plague him with guilt, that creates symptoms similar to battle fatigue. In both cases, there is no hardware problems, unless behavior lingers for a long time, yet the two conflicting software causes the entire operating system to freeze.

The question is, is contemporary psychology useful to both orientations? Or does it favor one over the other?

If we look at all the atoms that make up the brain, these are arranged as covalent molecules and ions, all connected to the action of electron sharing. The living state is somewhat unique in that a secondary layer of bonding occurs between molecules, and between molecules and ions (with water), which brings the molecules and ions together in loose fluid arrangments. This secondary layer of bonding is based primarily on the hydrogen proton. The value of the hydrogen proton, with respect to the living state can not be over emphasized. It provides the reduced materials from which energy will arise, and also provides the secondary bonding that is responsible for the structures and activity of DNA, proteins, RNA, as well as ionic/water interations and water/protein/RNA/DNA interactions. Since the hydrogen proton is so universal with respect to the living state and defines the lion's share of bioactivity, theoretically, the functioning of the brain can be simplied to just the hydrogen bonding. In other words, one does not need to define everything that is going on iwithn the nuclei of every atom to be able to define chemical properties, although both are probably highly coordinated. With respect to the living state and brain, one does not need to know everything about electron based chemistry to be able to define what is going on with the hydrogen proton, although both are also highly coordinated. This simplies the integration of the living state and brain from its chemical diversity, just as chemistry is simplied by separating all the theoretical constraints of the physics of atomic nuclei. Both foundations are important but can be factored out and still get practical models.

Ethyl alcohol, acetate are a couple of examples. Phospho-Lipids are also both, if one includes their negatively charged tails. The hydrophilic moieties interact with the hydrogen bonding of water to help lower the aqueous hydrogen bonding potental. While hydrophobic moieties interact with the hydrogen bonding of water to increase the aqueous hydrogen bonding potential. Small bi-functional molecules, like ethyl alcohol do both to create intermediate hydrogen bonding affects within the water.

The classical model of your question is similar to a spring. One would begin with highest gravitational potential (stretched spring). The highest velocity would be in the center (no stretch). and then gradually lose kinetic energy as the gravitational potential energy increases (stretches again) to max; one would pop out the other side the same height. The spring analogy would continue indefinately unless friction used up some of the potential/kinetic energy. What is interesting is that the center of gravity of the earth has no gravitational force, since the vectors will all cancel; assuming spherical symmetry. As such, in the center of the earth there is no net gravitational force even though the pressures are at a maximum, with the maxumum gravity potential or pressure coming from the surface.

The conceptual problem with special relativity is connected to the contemporary perception of time as a referencing tool. If time is viewed as a potential, than the reference abstraction becomes more concrete. In the case of time potential, the velocity increases the time potential so that more time potential needs to be expressed making everything last longer.

If one had mass and attempted to reach C, this would be impossible, since mass would increase to infinity and would therefore require more energy to achieve than is in the universe. To travel at C, one would need to become pure energy. Even the smallest quanta of energy can travel at C. To go faster than C is currently considered impossible. Like matter, energy has a speed limit, which in this case is C. As such, to go faster than C would require that energy would need to change into something else. We do not know yet what this something else is or could be, and based on what we do know, C is the current universe speed record.