pioneer

Most small children will make up imaginary play characters. Give them a toy and as they play, they make up a little dramas. Some boys might become a truck instead of a person. This is completely natural. Culture tries to shut off this imaginary play at a certain age. Shutting it off makes for a better herd animal. In the imaginary play world, the child is generating their own little play reality. The herd requirement is one reality for everyone, so the entire herd is in the same pen. It doesn't like free range cattle. It will even train the other children to be police. If you catch anyone you punish them so they get into the pen with everyone else. Once you get into college, especially if you live in dorms or some fraternities, this becomes common again. It is done in fun or stress release and allows the active imagination to come up with different ways to get into stuff. I had a friend who had a playful character he called Phenius J. Knurd, he was hilarious. I also knew someone who called himself the Birdman who would fly in your room with gobs of vaseline and goop you or your keyboard. You don't get mad, you would get even. Periodically others would lock him in his cage, by pennying him into his room before exams. He would have to climb out on the window ledge and fly to the ground. I should not tell you this one, but once the payback lowered the Birdman's desk out the window so it was dangling with a robe, with the other end tied to the inside door knob. They had removed the hinge pins. So when he unlocked the door, the door took out his window. Birdman could sometime get over bearing because he would try to use they character's birdbrain. It was fun and funny for everyone, but not all the time. If one is part of a gaming community or a sci-fi group you pretend alien worlds. Chat rooms, on the internet bring it back where anyone can create a dream world again. It does not go away, but there are places where it is OK. After college you need to wind down again and get back into the pen. What was interesting is the girl, with the fantasy world, was shooting from the hip in terms of a reality observation. The other girls, who are socially adapted, are taken back by the candor, because the herd is suppose to be less truthful from the hip. It is a different type of fantasy in the pen, which doesn't like too much reality all at once.

Here is an interesting observation about evolution and natural selection. One animal, that humans have been breeding for a long time, are horses. One area where more money is spent per house, in terms of breeding and selection, are race horses. There is a lot of money and prestige in this. This breeding and selection places the horses sort of in an ideal environment where evolution and selection is based on running and speed. One observation I noticed are triple crown champion caliber horses rarely, if ever, seem to breed offspring of the same caliber. The following year a different champ pops up from another stable. They sometimes even they pop up from low budget stables. It does not quite follow ideal Darwin even though we are stacking the deck. The result the breeders are looking for has an objective measure, i.e., running speed, using standard distances and a circuit of tracks. If their goal was subjective, like fancy tails, we could interpret the breeding results to make it appear like the process is working better. But based on an objective criteria, without uncertainty, i.e., called a fixed horse race, it doesn't work as well. The question is, is this due to artificial or unnatural selection? And if so, what theory are they using to make this artificial selection?

Maybe the wave-particle observation should be the pseudo-particle nature becomes more pronounced than the wave nature at larger size. But at smallest size the opposite is more true or more in proportion. A cannon ball is more like particle than a wave. In other words, one has to go through great trouble to determine the wave aspect. The particle is right over there. The uncertainty is interesting, as we get larger composites, the uncertainty begins to approach zero. That could be due to the proportional shrinking of the composite wave nature.

With the human body the laws of the conservation of energy apply. Energy input minus energy output equals accumulation of body energy or fat. Genetic factors will affect energy output as well as input fuel efficiency. The body can utilize input less than 100% (crap it out). Conscious choices also will have an impact on energy output, such exercise or not. You seem to have a good balance between energy input, fuel efficiency and output so the body holds steady. It is possible obese people are too fuel efficient plus tend to add too much fuel based on energy output.

This is more of an observation. At the smallest levels of matter and energy things obey quantum laws. But as you get larger into macro size quantum breaks down. For example, the pebbles on the shore of river are not quanta. There is certainty of position and their movement does not obey wave equations. These rocks are composed of quantum substructure, but as a composite they don't follow quantum laws. This is where a theory comes in. Most gravity situations involve mass composites like two big rocks that don't follow quantum laws. So maybe there is a way to extrapolate that transition from quantum into not quantum, so GR is able to interface with quantum theory. There is a slight macro difference that pure quantum theory leaves out, where sub particle uncertainty becomes composite certainty. Where waves blend into fixed composites that follow particle principles.

The original point is, this affect appears to be increasing. If it is genetic there is a wide range genetic change occurring. What caused this genetic change in such a short time? Or if was it always there, did culture change nurture so its affects are much more pronounced? The first requires we rethinking slow boat evolutionary theory, since this very fast. The second implies we need to look how culture has changed, nurturing.

This ADD phenomena has grown over the past decade. I asked myself what has changed. The other thing was to look at the nature of the problem, which is lack of attention span. One thing they both had in common was the change of policy away from spanking. That is why I suggested someone, less biased, to correlate the change in social policy as a function of ADD cases. Intuitively it adds up about right. We are not allowed structure the little animals in a way that is within the parameters of their attention span. The solution is medication. This is not painful, but this short of short term thinking since it may lead to unexpected long term problems. The butt is tough and heals. The liver may not be designed that way. Here is how I look at it. Let us look at medical treatment. Some people don't like to go to the doctors because pain is often part of the cure. If anyone had surgery, the after affect is not pleasure but pain and discomfort. I can be healthy and get a physical, but stilled get pained by needles. Why should any treatment involve pain? The answer is, you need to look at the big picture. That short term pain, if it cures you, is worth the pain. It is nothing personal, it is based on longer term vision. With ADD, two minutes after the spanking they forgot. When they remember they are cured. When some people go to the doctor to get a flu shoot, the vision of needle's pain may scare them away and make them second guess the correct action. But after it is over, and you escape the flu, it was worth it. I am not suggesting whips with nails, just enough to awaken will power with a sense of cause and affect. How many parents enjoy it when their children cry due to needles. Do we leave them home and forget about that to protect them? You look long term. Culture makes this law to protect the children from the irrational fear of the parents. One study that might useful is to compare subcultures, like fundamental religious people, who still use this old fashion technique, to that of the general population and compare cases of ADD. If it is independent there is no cause and affect. That would imply a rapid global genetic change. If there is a connection, science made a blunder, that can be corrected.

The psychologists Carl Jung developed the theory of archetypes. Using modern lingo, the archetypes are analogous to living personality software. The various levels are designed to interact with reality and collect data so they evolve. Within the small child there is basic form but little data. It is the innate learning capacity for a basic shell structure. This is analogous the nature aspect of the software. Culture and family provide the interactive data that builds upon this innate capacity to give it specific form. Let me give a loose analogy. We start with a robot with learning software designed to gather data about trees. The starting program only has stick figures of basic tree patterns, very general, without any particular tree species or species variation in mind. The robot walks about, looking at a rock. It doesn't follow the basic template for this program, so it moves on. Next, it finds a pine tree. This satisfies the basic template, so it takes a picture to help refine the generic image. Both the generic and the refined image now exist as the same time, or nature and nurture. We learn at both a unconscious and conscious level. This allows for two directions at the same time. It can still find maples trees to add to more detail to part of the stick figure templates or find variations in pine trees to add more detail to this possible variation: generalization-specialization. Often times, the cultural environment might be a forest of pine trees, where by default the data collection narrows into high pine tree resolution. The person who enters a more diverse forest may not obtain the same high singular resolution but may end up with fuzzier pictures of more tree variety. They are part of culture but not as singular fanatical. In terms of personality software, the learning is often connected to innate human behavior. For example, falling in love. It is a very general human trait that is common to all and is part of the mating instinct. When one is younger, one is in a diverse forest where falling in and out of love allows diverse data collection. Marriage become the pine tree forest where culture teaches one to specialize. The result is uniform in many ways with respect to all humans, but specific due to unique data collection. Humans have another feature, not found in animals, connected to the ego and will power. The analogy is the robot has its own unique autonomous programming and prime directive. But the ego has a remote control that can stir. Sometimes there can be conflict between the two, with the ego wishing to go left while the innate programming needs data from right. That is the normal human conflict between will, culture and nature. Animals don't have this problem since the software does all the stirring for them. According to the work of Jung there are three basic levels of innate learning software, slightly different in men and women. The difference allows cross programming dynamics between men and women. This is where the learning software interacts with other learning software. We call it the battle of the sexes. An analogy is two robots, who are designed differently, but both have the prime directive to gather data about the other robot and integrate that into their own design. This learning changes their own parameters altering the data collection for the other robot, so they change, etc. But since there are many layers of software there are also nature and nurture occurring both in similar and opposite directions independent of this level of the software, bringing this into the software interaction. The brain or nature has it all coordinated, so nurture programming errors are not that large. But at times this can occur causing operational problems. Medications can often be useful for operational problems. For example, if depression software is active, the proper med can close the program, so it is not reinforcing narrow data collection. The ego may not be able to stir the software out the dark forest. Once a new program comes on, maybe this one is collecting happy data. At that point, the ego doesn't mind following the prime directive of the software. It might be easier to stir or just follow the whims of the program.

Good suggestion. Practice with to get used to your technique and to gets the leaks and bugs out of the system. An interesting distillation affect is called steam distillation. A good pair is water and kerosene. They will not blend but appear as two phases. If you tried to boil just kerosene it has a relative high boiling point. But if you place it in water, it will vaporize quite readily at the boiling point of water. It is an old engineering energy saver technique. Another consideration when boiling something hazardous like nitric acid or whatever is to avoid superheating. Sometimes the temperature in the pot will get higher than the expected boiling point and then just erupt. It is good to add a few boiling stones before starting to avoid this special affect. The boiling stones provide a surface for bubbles to nucleate. Without that surface potential can build until there is a bubble chain reaction.

Hydrogen is number 1, helium number 2 then oxygen is 3. For some reason fusion prefers to go all the way to oxygen with the atoms in the middle (3 to 7) more like intermediate products, since their percentages are significantly lower than O. One possible way to look at it, is He4, is a tetrahedron of sorts, due to four nucleons. While O16, which is the most common isotope if O might be sort of a tetrahedron of a tetrahedron. There may be a nuclear stability in this since it appears to be the preferred product. What is interesting is H2O is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, behind H2. Within this range is the energetics of the living state. Life forms in the universally sweet spot. Since fusion from H to O will give off a lot of energy, the nucleon, H proton, at some level, has more potential energy than the average nucleons within O, based on an energy balance. The extra octane in the H, relative to O, might account for the very unique properties water. It is called hydrogen bonding out of respect for H.

Dark matter and dark energy poses an interesting consideration. Let us assume it exists, since we don't fully understand it and its properties, the question one asks is what happens when it interacts with light energy? Does it create a doppler shift looking affect? The doppler shift calculations were from a time before we even knew there was dark stuff. The dark stuff came later due certain anomalies. Maybe there is cause and affect. Gravity will contract light so anti-gravity should expand it, which would look similar to doppler. The most distant stuff goes through the most filter, so it should be more shifted. It is not clear what percent this might be.

Part of the problem is most of the life sciences are empirical. You can't fully reason things through in logical steps and then run a test or two to verify. The life sciences are done more in sort of a reverse reason where you try something and see what happens and then try to find a reason. Modify it and try again, etc. until steady state. I takes a lot of animals. The analogy is firing a cannon. If you have the rational equations you know where the cannon ball will land, by the math. You do your calculations and then shoot the cannon once or twice just to confirm. But if it not fully rational with equations, like what we currently have, you have keep firing the cannon and adjusting until you hit the target. It uses a lot cannon balls. Each cannon ball is an animal. To reduce the animal casualties, the science has to look more like the first version. Maybe with computer models they can get close and then fire the cannon for verification. You will still need animals but the pile will be smaller. The obvious question is, "why don't they upgrade and save animals?" The answer it is too complicated currently to do that. What would be needed is a simplification that can reduce the complexity. The next question are they working on that? Some are, but you know how tradition is. We have been doing it this way for over a hundred years and if the machine is not broken don't try to fix it. The analogy is, we have the cannon crews adjusting and firing, adjusting and firing, etc. The animals are flying left and right. Poindexter walks in with his equation and calculator and tweaks the cannon, bulls eye. He is assumed wrong because it didn't use the normal amount of animal cannon balls. I looks like magic. In other areas of science this it is not as far from the comfort zone.

In terms of operation, if you are distilling ethanol and water, for example, since ethanol has a lower boiling point, a higher ratio of ethanol will boil off than is in the pot, but this richer vapor will still contain water. The reflux ratio is how much of this primary vapor blend you condense and let drip back into the pot from the condensers. The affect of the refluxing is it will strip more water out of the primary vapor that is rising out of the pot. The water will diffusion out of the vapor into the dripping liquid, allowing the ethanol concentration in the primary vapor to get stronger. The more reflux the higher the ethanol at the top. But this lowers the rate at which product will come off the top. If you wish to further increase efficiency, if the distillation column don't already have it, add some type of packing such as glass beams or teflon beads, each will act slightly differently. You are still on reflux, except you get more mixing and therefore more transfer efficiency. The result is your purity will increase, at any reflux ratio. The difference between teflon and glass is based on surface tension. The water will wet glass but bead up on teflon. The alcohol is slightly the other way. It determines which will be the continuous phase and will affect mass transfer between vapor and liquid. What is interesting about ethanol and water is at 95% ethanol you hit what is called an azeotrope. What happens is there is an inversion at 95% and water boils easier than ethanol. There are ways to crack the azeotrope but this denatures the product. You can also use desiccating stones to strip the water from 95% ethanol, but that is not distillation.

Say we assume it is genetics. What this implies is a wide spread change in genetics for a significant fraction of the population in a relatively short period of time. It could be selective advantage based on the social environment created by society over the past generation or so. It would imply genetics able to change quickly to the environment. Maybe these are normal genes that have always been there. But the social problem was less prevalent a generation ago. Humans have free will and are not fully under the control of behavioral genetics. Maybe the parent environment is not set up for the willpower. That, in turn, is a function of bad parenting advice from culture. Spanking on the butt does little physical damage compared to the possible liver damage medication might create. As far as emotional damage, they don't have the attention span to linger about it. When it reaches the point where it starts to linger, they are cured.

I was just applying existing evolutionary theory. What this indicates is either nicotine has a natural benefit, which is why it became part of natural selection, or natural selection does not have to go to the best genes since the final result is less than optimum in terms of what we know is the progressive path. Maybe the social environment which had been pro tobacco for many generations led to genetic change. One way out there theory is the mind, due to social prestige adapted the genetics to needs of the social hierarchy. This would explain global adaption without the need of everyone having to smoke.

Another way to look at this, is to think in terms of an energy balance in the brain. Humans have will power and are able to store data that complements the brain's natural design, exceeds it, or even fall short of it. The brain may be doing a shuffle to restore steady state. In terms of natural survival, adaptation require constant flexibility. Whereas something like a Phd is very narrow. An analogy is leaving one picture on an old fashion computer monitor. It burns into the screen. The screen saver shuts it off with a dynamic picture, so the entire screen shares the burden and you don't get one burn image. It scrambles the mind to make you think or worry about something else, like a screen saver. The gravity idea has led your mind down a creative path. If taken symbolically, rather that be attached to the narrow mind (gravity) it wants you to defy that (anti-gravity). Be free to think but also be practical to program requirements.

One practical problem is mirror bio-material is not chemically active. So even of you could set up an entire mirror cell, perfectly, it would just sit there. If you do an energy balance most bio-chemical mechanisms don't add up using the biomaterial alone. It takes water. Water doesn't exactly have a mirror image. The H20 molecule in solution only lasts about 1 millisecond, so it would revert back to stable steady state. The water push will be to revert the mirror back so it can be functional again where the energetics are able to add up right. If not, the mirror becomes food for life that has the energy engine.

I was just applying evolutionary theory. If it was about animals with 50% of them having genes for a streak of white fur, then we would say see, this is evolution at work. But when the same thing gives us the result we don't want we are not ready to accept the theory. Since we know smoking is not healthy than it would imply even regressive behavior, with obvious disadvantages can evolve into genetics. This could explain why evolution is so slow. It doesn't have to forward the best. On the other hand, cigarette smoking is relatively new in terms of mass appeal, as a result of modern manufacturing and marketing. This could indicate the rate of genetic change was quick and it happened almost globally, even in those with little history of cigarette smoking. The third option is nature has an instinct for other natural products of the earth. Perhaps the affect is more based on natural moderation with certain natural products part of human diversity. The fourth option is because empiricism is so flexible, in terms of getting anything you like, because it does not have to rely much on logic, this study had a goal in mind, which is the selling of a medical test to determine who has the genes. They may already have the test or medicine, they just need to create the market. The cigarette manufacturers do their own studies and get what they want, too. They could use evolutionary theory to interpret this as natural evolution with selective advantage. I should not be so suspicious, so I was thinking in terms of many possible logical alternatives.

I didn't read the paper, but I saw a news blip on CNN about scientist discovering some genetic factors that could lead to nicotine addiction, with these factors appearing in up to 50% of the population. If this is true, it has an interesting conclusion, that is subtle. If we apply modern evolutionary theory, nicotine consumption had a selective advantage. If it wasn't a selective advantage, according to the current theory, the rate should be much lower, since those genes would be bred out. I am not for cigarette smoking, but using evolutionary theory, it is interesting to ponder why cigarette smoking created a selective advantage. Or, since we know cigarette smoking is not good for you, does this imply that selective advantage can also go to regressive genes? One analogy of the latter, are a herd of deer having their mating olympics with the big buck winning. Based on the rules of the game, big dumb ox wins and medium smart ox is eliminated in the trials. What goes forward is big dumb ox genes. The progressive smart brain and smaller body genes don't get into the gene pool due to the way the rules of the game are set up. Getting back to nicotine, somehow the big dumb ox genes had selective advantage due to the rules of the game. Or if the rules were optimized does smoking cigarettes represents some type of genetic progression? The third scenario is cigarette smoking, was an environmental potential leading to an almost global change in genes. What we are seeing is genetic adaptation to a potential. This is harder to prove since the science is not that advanced yet. The necessity with empiricism would be the need to observe molecular change in situ within a dynamic system, which is not easy to do. At the same time, logic is not part of the empirical tool kit, where that of itself is sufficient.

I always assume it has to do with discontinuous data. For example. if one had pictures of themselves at year 1 and then year 18, it would look like one day your grew from 15 pounds to 165 pounds. It would look like this human had a quantum growth spurt due to some genetic mutation. Baldness is another example. One can see them with hair as young and then have a picture of being bald. The conclusion is selective advantage and some mutation that changes the species. But in reality it was innate genes that took some time to become expressed. It is a magician's trick due the gap in data being a type of pretty girl distraction. Or quantum data leads to quantum conclusions.

This is just a logical observation but it seem to make sense. Small children with attention disorders may not learn attention control from time outs. The duration of the punishment exceeds their attention span. But a quick crack to the butt, has a fractional second duration, so this should be within their attention range. Has anyone ever plotted changes in the social policy away from spanking, and the increase in ADD's, to see if this correlates? When I was younger, my brother and I were a year apart. He was much more hyper and I was more contained. Time outs work well with me. I would use that time to sulk or worry. But with him, almost immediately he would see it as having got away with something. His mind was already scheming. He forgot why he was there and was off in another direction. The feather slap on the wrist, to him, was worth another try in the future. If my dad was there, and he caught us, he would use the 1 sec time out. After that it was over. My brother had more respect because cause and affect was within his attention span. But the slap for me was sort of an overdose, since the time out would work fine. The hit on the butt is not one size fits all, but it appears to be more affective for children who don't have a long attention span. Later in life, my brother never got upset about being spanked. There was no trauma, because as far as he is concerned, he was an active kid getting into all kinds of stuff and deserved what he got. If anything, it helped to slow him down so he could focus better. Maybe there should be a study to see if the epidemic of future legal drug dependency can be avoided with an old fashion natural green psychology trick. It may require a doctor's prescription so this treatment only goes to the children who can benefit. It is not for kids with more self control. The time out appears effective enough.

There a basic unanswered whys, like why quanta exist. This "why" will affect everything. That should be the foundation. Instead we build in the air. We have this huge mythological city floating above the earth defying gravity. There is a gap between the city and the earth. In other words, if quanta are due to fairies, unicorns, energy, time, each of these changes everything. As long as the gap remains the magical city is safely floating in the air. It can't land because it is not natural to build in the air without a basic foundation. The affect is real but without why it is a correlation that isn't rational. It is a loop that is self feeding allowing it to levitate.

One person's science is another person's magic. In other words, the layman may marvel at technology. The sees how it functions in terms of affect, but have no idea how it works. In their mind, they picture a bunch of genius geeks contriving mechanisms. These "geniuses" are almost placed on a pedestal in a mythological fantasy. On the factory floor, they are just Joe or Bob. When the mind reaches its own frontiers, the imagination becomes active and this myth affect will often kick in. In the past, there wasn't a lot of literature to appease the myth affect, so everything was magic. Where this magic affect lies, is in one of the final frontiers of science, which is the human brain and mind. It reflects natural workings of the mind. This should be an area where all scientists should be trained since mythology can still be active even in a reasonable person. For example, theoretical physics has many scenarios for the same things. They can't all be right. Some are magic tricks. They won't be called magic because science doesn't do magic tricks. That is why you need to rely on reason instead of faith. Common sense says mutually exclusive means they can't both be true at the same time. Thanks to this mind phenomena, even science can be tricked. When the virtual door opens magically with math, the god of science must be doing this. He is all powerful. If you dig below the ground (unconscious mind) and look at premises it is a mind machine. In this case the machine is innate within how the unconscious mind works in a natural way. With Las Vegas magic acts, you know the big time, it is always useful to have a pretty babe to draw attention. This distracts the audience so they don't easily see the magician's hands. The goal is to make you see the final affect, which is magic. What is interesting about the mind mechanism is the magician may not even be aware he is doing magic. The mind is at work fooling themselves with its own magic. I like science, but I like to figure out how the tricks works. Not all science is this way, but some is.

One way to look at it is, quantum breaks down at large size. While classical breaks down at small size. There is no quantum of rocks. We can locate a rock with great certainty. It will not disappear, go back or forward into time or have coordinated partners or even move as a wave. But as we go small, these things begin to happen. I am not sure where transition no mans land is. Maybe at bio-molecules, who knows???? Medicine uses sort of an uncertainty approach, not due to nature but due to technical limitations. But soon it will be very certain where to put the medicine. Unless the bacteria has a quantum trick up it sleeve. It all depends where the transition is.

The Na+ ion is what is called a kosmotrope and K+ ion is what is called a chaotrope. What that means is Na+ will create order in water (cosmos) and K+ will create disorder (chaos) in water. The effect of this ionic associated water extends to nearby proteins such as channels. The K+ and its chaotropic affect on water cause these channels to looser, so they leak. The Na+ ion is smaller, but because it brings its ordered water, the channel tightens up like a frog's butt being by chased by a snake. This water affect is also required for the energetics of the sodium pumps. The Na+ needs to be on the inside and the K+ on the outside to work. The K+ on the outside loosens up the butt end of the pump. Although the Na+ tightens the mouth, its structured water is needed to account of the energetics that allow the ATP reaction to occur. If we switch chaotrope and kosmotrope the energy doesn't add up properly and you get a dud.