pioneer

One way to help the environmental cause, in a way that would make industry more willing to comply, is to change the role of government agencies, like the EPA, from police, to a leadership role in R&D. For example, if they think it is necesary to reduce X, rather then just nag and force compliance, they lead by first developing the technology needed to meet the requirements. Once the technology is developed, it is much easier for industry to comply, since many can't afford the R&D. If the EPA is unable to create the needed technolgy or unable to achieve the limits they hoped for, then whatever they can achieve is the new standard. It is called putting your money where you mouth is, instead of putting you nose into other people business, and then trying to bully them. Rather than the EPA being a bunch of paper pushes eating up trees, they reorganize to become a science center, where concerned scientitics work to make it easy for industry to comply, so the environment is protected. You run the lab tests. Then scale up to pilot studies. Then do field tests, where representives from industry come to participate to learn the ins & outs. The idea is to clean the environment, by making it easier to comply. What many environmentists don't realize is industy would like to comply. But this is not their only concern. They have a business to run and they also need to maintain jobs for their employees. If complying means losing the business and having to lay off hundreds or thousands, they will need to chose the lessor of two evils. It is cheaper to lobby politians. But if we handed them the solution on a silver platter, it is easier for them to do the right thing while still maintaining a healthy business. A good analogy is a neighbor with a yard full of junk. The neighborhood watch dogs can keep threatening them, or they round up the concerned neighbors to help them clean the yard. The first solution never works. But second solution helps everyone get what they wanted, in less time.

One way to look at the evolution of life, in terms of gibbs free energy, is to compare modern species, from humans, to single cell life. We know the approximate pecking order, relative to what is advanced. We then do an energy efficiency survey and one should see higher forms of life have more efficient GFE. The easiest way to approach this, the brain and muscles use the most energy intensive of the cells in the human body. The brain is especially so, constantly burning a lot of calories for a small amount of biomass. The muscles, as a whole may burn more, by they are 10-20 times the mass. If we normalize, per pound, then brain, which is universally understood to be the criteria of evolution, is what what converts the most Gibb's efficient free energy/weight the most efficiently. I understand this creates a problem for conventional wisdom, which likes to think in terms of random and selective advantage. In this case, the random and selective advantage is not random, but follows a fairly direct relationship that lead to net improvements within the efficiencies. For example, insects often have six legs, but animals ended with four. This was not some random mutation, it was simply more efficient. If evolution happened again, it would still evolve the same thing not due to some mutation, but becuase of higher efficiency in lowering free energy. Multicellular sort of distributes the tasks in such a way that all parts are able to achieve efficiency while also making the entire bio-unit greater than the sum of the parts, individually. An interesting life form is cancer. This can really burn energy, mostly because cancer stays within the most energy intensive state of a cell's life cycle, which is during the creation of new cells. With cancer, the entropy falls at a very fast rate, to create rapid orderring into more and more cells. It is not multicellular, in the traditional sense of an animal. But it could be a state of cell mass that might have evolved into multicellular. In other words, it sort reaches the single cell energy maxima, requiring the next step to be able to take the lowering of free energy, to higher efficiency.

It almost sounds like you are contrasting specialization with generalization. A specialist can approach the environment from one angle with a lot of focus right down to the tiny detail. The generalist would approach the environment, with much less depth in any one area, but from many points of views, all at the same time. The advantage of the generalists approach is that, although it may not optimize the environment, in one special way, it makes it easier to find the compromise that maximizes all the many different interests. For example, from an purely environmental point of view, the ideal may be zero emissions, pure water, air, no strip mining, etc. From the point of view of developing countries, it may require they do these things. There are also the concerns of the naturalists who wish to protect species and eco-systems. But there are also nutritionists who wish to feed the hungry, who might suggest introducing new species into eco-systems. Then the geneticists want to bio-engineer new plants. One also needs to add economic factors and concerns, that are a fact if life. There are also political factors, that may ebb and flow depending on election cycles. There are also sociological things that limit choices. All these will need to have their finger on the pie before we divide. When you are done, compromising, nobody will be full of pie, but everyone will have a good taste. With specialization, each specialty takes the negociation stance of all, because they know so much about the importance of their point of view. But other points of view are also valid, and they feel the same way. The generalists doesn't know enough to buy any one point of view, but knows enough about a lot of points if view to know they also make valid points. From the synthesis, of many concerns, we work to the middle ground. Maybe a university could put together an eco-generalist curriculum. It would be coursework in environmental science, health, politics, economic, sociology, culture antrapology, ethics, whatever, all geared to the environmental position each needs to optimize its position. One learns to put on everyone's finest hat and then see if we can reach compromises. The generalists tries to develop wisdom through general knowledge.

There are two types of awareness. One is an awareness of the environment and the ability to interact with the environment. But there is also inner awareness, i.e., I think therefore I am. The first can occur without self reflection, while the second is self reflection. With humans, we have both types of awareness. One way to see the contrast is to compare extroverts to introverts. Both personality types, have both types of awareness, but often an extrovert can react quicker to the social environment. The introvert may spend longer thinking before they will speak or act. While the extrovert often says the first thing on their mind. Animals are far more extroverted in the sense, they react to the environment without requiring internal reflection. That does not preclude the possibilities of having adaptive awarenes. Animals react and adapt, but they don't dwell on it. They unconsciously gather the sensory data needed to make an unconscious choice. The output tends to happen quite fast and becomes repeatable. With respect to Antropoid consciousness, the inner awareness becoming common, i.e, I think therefore I am, should have been reflected by increasing problems with old school instinctive adaptation. If one became self aware, at a time when everything is done for you by instinct, then one will start to make different choices, on a large scale. The evolution of culture, appears to be where self awareness appears. Before that, humans had very advanced animal-human awareness but lacked inner awareness. For example, if we go to a dance, the extroverted boys might go and ask the girls to dance. The introverted boys want to, but might start to think about it too much and become indecisive about what they should do. The girl could be flashing signs, that any extrovert can see, but the introvert is not reacting properly to the signs, because he is more in his own mind. With respect to the birth of self awareness, what had been simple, should have gotten more difficult, since the inner reflection may not cooincide with environmental cues, which up to that point, would trigger distinct reaction. When culture appeared, the old way didn't work; it needed to upgrade. Humans began to lose their instincts in favor of cultural laws, which is what the self awareness needs, so it can learn to think on its own.

One way to look at the multiple choice feature of the brain, that is used by free will, is to look at chemistry. If we wanted to make propyl alcohol, it can come out in two ways, either the -OH group attaches on either end of the three carbons, i.e., n-propanol, or the -OH group will be added on the middle carbon, i.e., iso-propanol. Is it sort of a multiple choice, with the chemical environment able to shift the equilibrium either way. If we scale up to the brain and neural memory, these are complex chemical systems that have a wider variety of possible states. Free will sort of alters the environment about the possibilities to create one. If you look in terms of energy, the lowest possible energy state is reality. But the ego can add energy to the system to create higher energy states. For example, iso-propanol is the easiest of the two, to make. This is sort of analogous to the lower energy version of the two choices, i.e., natural reality. But the chemists can add other reagents to shift the balance the other way. The other way is still a valid choice, it occurs in nature, but nature does not make that one in quite those same proportions. The problem that a physicist may face is that in physics the four forces are very deterministic and tend to follow singular paths to an outcome. It is not a multiple choice. We can add energy but that is also deterministic. But in the chemistry of larger molecules, the EM force has many options. Instead of just postive and minus we have 6 positive and 5 minus, which now allows a wide range of possible options with little energy difference. These still all obey the laws of physics, but now we have multiple choices. If we compare the brain to semi-conductor memory, with semi-conductor we start with a nice uniform wafer and then partitian it with software. But as the brain grows, the partitions occurs, via branching, even before the child is old enough to be able to add anything in the way of memory. When the memory is added, its potential causes the brain to try to lower its energy into stable states, such as for long term memory storage. These need to be very stable so they will last a life time without corruption. The short term memory has more multiple choice, allowing adaptive flexibility. Once it is settled, then it becomes part of long term memory.

The definitions of disorders covers a rather large area, with each basic disorder having a wide range of sub-sets to that disorder group. It almost looks like we need to include another disorder called, research disorder. This can defined as the obsessive need to split category hairs. Who sets the standards with respect to what is considered normal without any form of disorder? What is considered perfection without disorder? Those who conduct such knit picking studies must include themselves as being up there with respect to those who are considered without disorder. The social affects can not be eliminated that easy. For example, eating disorders is more common to females than to males. Males tend to prefer drinking disorders. One can see how, with culture putting a lot of stress on female beauty, this can create problems for some females trying to fit in. Psychology comes in, after the damage is done, and then tries to help. By then one basic cause begins to distribute into a variety of affects. Then each is treated as though it is totally unique with its own classification. Whether the girl purges with the left or right hand becomes two disorders. The underlying reason for this research disorder is due to specialization. Anthing that is slightly different gets a new classification. One can no longer see it in the context of a bigger picture, but only in the context of tiny differences that appear to make it unique. If a gumball machine has eight colors, each gumball is no longer view as just gumballs of different colors, but now each color is now a unique entity. The color, is now what makes these distinct and special. To treat this research disorder, we need to dip the gumballs in water to remove the color vaneer, so everyone can see they are dealing with 95%, the same thing. Once you know the common thing, then one can treat disorders in wholesale fashion, instead of depend on labor intensive retail fashion.

The normal differences that exist between people can lead to problems. If one was the only studeous person among a group of athletes, or vice versa, one is not able to fully adapt in that environment, in a way that also allow them to fully use their own natural abilities. It may require insulating oneself from that environment. But doing that is considered a problem. This problem may be treated to help the person better adapt. But since they can never be the best they can be, then there is the continuing problem of being an under achieiver in that environment. So we then treat this under achiever problem with motivational therapies. But still the person can not get as good as those who are more naturally inclined and suited to that environment. So now we have extra schooling and training to make them better at the norm. But even after all of that, one is still second string and begins to feel depressed. So you go back to therapy to deal with the depression. They offer you drugs but this creates conflict. Culture is so against drugs, yet it is so willing to give you drugs for anything and everything. So you stick with therapy and find out the depression is due to not being true to yourself. So you find your own niche, but due to the environment, might require you sort of insulate yourself a litle more, so you can come into your own. Now you are back to step one, needing therapy to deal with isolation, since this is considered a problem by another specialty group. Culture sort of sets the standards of optimized behavior. If you so happen to be naturally inclined along these lines, adaptation is very easy. If your personal inclinations and abilities don't line up properly, one has problems. People try to find birds of a feather, so they are in an environment which allows their natural inclinations to be the norm. But if this group is not the norm, then the entire group has a social problem. Often social tensions is between groups, each trying to the create an environment that is better suited to them. But each environment puts another group at a disadvantage, so they fight to keep things easier. I suppose the compromise is where everyone is a little messed up ,but no one group is singled out so it can to be fully messed up, for all. In other words, the distribution of innate abilities, requires that to build up one group, we need to have a social scape goat to dump the crap on. They are sort of the reflection of innate ability, being opposites. For example, the large number of addicts is a reflection of another group that is being propped up, by their creating a lopsided environment that is more suited to their natural inclinations. Nags need punching bags. Without punching bags the nags get depressed. The best example was the monarchy. To sustain the 1% they needed 99% percent peasants. Or 99% repression was needed for 1% ego inflation.

The two centers have less to do with brain hardware but with software. I used to believe the same thing as you, many many years ago. What got me convinced was I saw myself neurotic, back then, and went to a few therapy sessions. Part of what they tried to show is how behavior from the past can act almost like a subroutine that plays over and over. The first thing that is taught is an awareness of this subroutine, until one can see it as acting sort of indendantly and you can sit back and watch it. Once you see that, I realized that consciousness is only half the story. If you look at addicitons, some people would like to quit, but keep going back to doing the same thing. The conscious mind may say quit, but the subroutine, which has become a self perpetuating habit, says go for it. Even religion used to call those subroutines the Devil inside. Not that it was the Devil, but they were conscious of another consciousness. This therapy, by making me aware that something inside could sort of act on its own, apart from my will, got me interested in psychology, so learn more about it. After dabbling in many orientations, I found Jungian to be the best for what I sort of had in mind. Jung breaks the unconscious into archetypes or behavior forms. Human behavior is similar to all humans allowing us to be classified as one species. This fundamental behavior comes from the unconscious mind. The archetypes was a way to subdivide different aspects of human behavior into very specific things. One thing I do remember from that time was, when I started to look deeper into that unconscious point of view, I hit this wall. This wall has been placed there by both religion and by culture. What is on the other side of the wall is as scary as your imagination can make it. The fear is sort of the cultural guardian that prevents one from tampering. If anyone tries to get through the wall be prepare to face your fears. The fear is the fear of going insane or becoming psychotic, where all your fears can not longer be contained but continue to pour into you imagnation. I had a religious unbringing so many of my fears had a religion darkside. I was also trained as a scientist and thought this was irrational. But irrational or not, this was the guardian that had been place at the wall of my mind. What happened was, stupid me, I decided to go forward, rather than take the fear hint seriously, and leave the cultural wall just like it had been. I was a young scientists trying to gather data in a new frontier and figured I was able to deal with any superstitiious hog wash that might appear. The unconscious mind appeared in layers with the most shallow layers first appearing upon hitting the wall. As the layers go deeper and deeper they are far more subtle but become conscious. The shallow layers use the strongest emotional and instinctive impulses, with the guadrian fear being felt first at the wall. But once past that, it wasn't so bad. As you pass through the layers the inner self appears here and there. The inner self is sort of the center of the unconsciousness and the jukebox of archetypes. It took about three years to get to where the inner self started to interact where data transfer between hemispheres was occurring constantly. I understand the wall of fear and using 20/20 hindsight, I would not have tried this again. Nor would I recommend it to anyone. The wall was placed there so we don't because too conscious, of the unconscious. The Age of enlightenment has helped to keep us left hemisphere. It has also helped to fortified the wall. People are far less haunted by spirits and ghosts, which are manifestations of things that still seep from behind the wall. My wall did reassemble, but left some new type of plumbing in place.

Part of the reason many Americans can't find places on the map is due to the liberal education system. The Democratic party has control of the public educational system. The Republicans try to send their children to free market private schools or do home schooling, and score better. If people can't find Iraq and you told then, here it is, right near Japan, then they are ripe to be told anything you want them to believe. The dumbing down of America, through the public education system, makes it possible create the confusion/illuison as to what Democratic candidates stand for. Although American people can't do simple geography, they are very knowledgeable when it comes to entertainment. This is the land of Hollywood and make believe. This is also a stronghold of the Democrats. Maybe the strategy is to dumb them down and then make them more knowledgable and attracted to, the world of make believe. If you go back to the Hilary data, within her party she is moderate. But the most liberal of that party are way out there at the cutting edge. The other observation, this group is against more things, than they stand for. There is a lot of bottled up anger in this group against the establishment. A conservative Democrat only has to have one issue, which they do not agree, relative to the rest of the Democratic party. If you are not fully with the program, they label you a conservative for punishment. For example, Senator Lieberman supports a strong defense but is with the Democratic party on almost all the other issues. He was targetted and branded a traitor to the cause. Hilary is moderate between these extremes. She is with the program, 100%, but is not ready to break down everything. When you go to a larger population, the results are more objective. There are many independants, who are not connected to either party. These people are able to see the two extremes, i.e, extreme left and right, and extrapolate the center to better define a moderate in light of all the data. Based on that assessment, Hilary is to the left of a true moderate. The reason for this, she needs the support of the extreme left. She not only needs their support, but she is afraid to upset them, since they are most radial group in American politics, full of bitterness and resentment. They could use their anger machine to damage her, so she stays left. Once she gets the Democratic nomination, she will move toward center. She needs to, to be able to get that important independant vote. She is almost garenteed the support of the most of the Democrats. The far left will hate her for this, but they are calculated to hate the Republicans even more. They will grudgenly get into line to prevent the Republicans, with the hope that once she is elected, they will be able to influence her, again. But the reality of the job as President will make her have to stay in the middle, if she wants to get things done. The far left will feel betrayed and many will start jumping ship. They were all dumbed down by the educational system and built up with the entertainment system to be used as pawns in the game of political chess. Former President Clinton may be needed to smooth ruffled feathers. They will be needed, again, for the next electrion cycle when the House and Senates appears. The extreme left needs to cut a deal up front, and make support conditional.

The left hemisphere is more rational and the right is more spatial. The spatial nature of the right hemiphere makes it better at putting together an integration of data and logic. When the synthesis is complete, the 3-D memory pops a 2-D data output, into the left hemisphere, for Eureka. Based on my own self observation, the ego or conscious mind goes through its rational synthesis. It starts to get frustrated. I tend to feel a type of mini-down feeling. This appears to be the right side sort of limiting control of the ego with this lower energy, since the right side has the data it needs and doesn't need any more help. Once the right side finishes, there is an up feeling, i.e., Eureka, as the output appears in the left hemisphere for conscious awareness. It is almost like a bi-polar affect but connected to rational analysis, spatial synthesis, and then output. When the down side of the analysis bi-polar lasts longer than normal, usually a brand new idea pops into my head, that I have not thought of before. Often it is not even be part of where I thought I was heading. It is often something on the back burner that is suddenly fully baked. I have learned to observed where on, which duration, bi-polar cycle I am, so I can tell when something is almost ready to pop into conscious awareness. I like to jump around the forums, because I try to get a lot of pies baking at the same time. As the beeper goes off, I take one of the pies out of the oven, to share. At times, the pie is too hot or should have cooled with a little more rational forethough. But sometimes, if another pie is ready to peep, I often need to just get it out, to have time for the next. Using the right side of the brain to bake pies is a skill that can be learned. The way my ideas have evolved is that as pies come out of the oven, I try to think about them at the rational level, i.e., left hemisphere, this becomes additional data input for the right hemisphere. I also try to add what other says and as well as various criticisms to the data blend. Then I put this into the oven to bake, while I tend to another cooked pie. Often I drop topics because the pie pan is already full and needs to cook. I'll be glad when the oven finally stops and reaches some steady state. It gets quite tiring being a one man bakery but it is also a lot of fun discovering. The area I would like to focus my skill is the hydrogen model of life. The problem I am facing is I can't get any good outside data input. There is only a resistant cynicsm that prevents the synthesis from evolving. I can sort of understand that a rational model of the life is too advanced. While it is hard for me to go backwards to observational empiricism. The right side works with a forward integration and I can't seem to change that.

Subliminal adveritising makes use of the fact that the unconscious mind can pick up data faster and at higher data density than the conscious mind. The unconscious mind is more data neutral and simply records the data and relies on the ego or conscious mind to give it a valence tag. For example, if the advertiser had a female in a bathing suit and also a subliminal line for the unconscious, the subliminal line would also get the same type of emotional tag or valence, as the ego gives the pretty girl. If the pretty girl had been substituted for a car wreck, that would become the valence tag for the subliminal and would make it feel negative. If we had a movie that had romance, sex, fighting, car chases, brutality, murder, sadness, renewal, etc., and played a subliminal message every ten minutes for "buy popcorn", most people would become indecisive. Even male and female may alternate valances with the females liking the more mushy parts and hating most of the fighting, while the males may feel less about the mushy parts and react better during action scenes. The net result, the subliminal would get all messed up. When the girl wants the popcorn the guy may say wait. When he is ready, she says forget it. Then she changes her mind only to have the guy delay again. In the end, the valence starts to cancel to where neither want any popcorn.

If you look at applied science, such as engineering, the only science you can really use is connected to science that is already proven in the lab. It also has to be science that is, not a random in occurance, but something that is very predictable and therefore able to be scaled up. If one is building a bridge, one needs firm data in metalurgy. One also needs firm calculations in mechanics. If the architech tried to design for for form instead of function, then the engineers and scientists would have to make the theoretical form subject to scale-up before beginning. Theoretical science is sort of the architecture of science. It is design for both form and function. The function is based on what we already know, but the form may or may not yet be solid enough to be scaled up. Often form is designed to catch the imagination to create incentive. I was not aware that Einstein had been sort of a womanizer. That could explain the calm smile that is often seen in pictures of him. It also seems to indicate that some science stars have their own female groupies. Scientists are often taught to question things, but this is often limited to anything that is new. The stuff already there is often exempt. If you question at that level, then science questions your ability to question.

The point I was trying to make was, social pressure for conformity to a arbitrary standard adds extra pressure onto those who drink. This can make the problem worse. In cultures where drinking is a normal part of life, i.e., wine, there is not the same social problem, compared to cultures who try so hard to help the poor addicts solve their problem. In these tolerant countries they drink the same amount but are not babied. The result is empowerment and less conditioned self pity requiring drinking. I only used the cell phone example to show the cultural anatomy of addiction. I don't see this as a problem, but if culture decided to make this a problem, it could create a new group of addicts they can baby. Once you convince people of a new problem many feel the weight of a problem. I realize the goal, is to apply pressure, so not drinking, is the lessor of the two evils. This works for some but others become addicts. This is a way to avoid becoming another herd animal and retain individuality. Shopping can be an addiction that can impact the entire family due to the financial strain and all the stress this can cause. This is the other side of addiction, which is created by culture via mass marketing. One creates a social conditioning that makes some behavior extra satisfying. Alcoholism has both the push of the free market and the pull dynamics created by instituted addiction. This makes this particular addiction tough to deal with, due to the double reinforcement. Think of it this way, if you are an alcoholic you should be ashamed according to culture. On the other hand, drinking the new Barcardi Silver can allow you to have fun. To get rid of the shame you are suppose to feel about drinking, one now needs to drink so you can have some fun and avoid becoming a sheep; baaaaa. If we go back to the cell phone, the marketing is trying to cell product. They need to make everyone think is this some much fun. There is also status having the latest gadget, which also makes one feel special. As long as we don't decide to help by defining a new social addiction, all the kids are having conditioned fun. Once defined ,then we have addicts. Nagging is a type of behavior that can get quite addicting. This is a type of emotional and psychological abuse that impacts other people. If there is a place to institute a new addiction, let us pick on the nags. We can drive them underground, so they can all only nag at each other. At least a group of drunks can find friendship, but a group nags would get on each others nerves. They would have to separate until there is noone to nag. This addictive behavior would cure itself, so they can return to normal.

It is not the reference shrinking, but reference becomes magnified. The 1 cm puddle of water, does not really change sitting on the microscope, but by looking at it through the microscope we know see much more room. At low gravity, we can only compact matter, until the electrons orbitals on the atoms begin to touch. If we increase gravity or magnify the reference, what once appeared like filled in space, now actually has a lot more void space in our magnified reference. It is now possible to rearrange the furniture to take advantage of all this extra space. We call this pressure. Even when we reach neutron density, if this is a box of balls, if we magnify the reference even more ,then we see the gaps between balls. So now we can make use of that space, causing the insides to come out. With SR one is not compacting. Things stay the same, only distance and time become alterred. The people in the ship stay whole. But with the reciprical amount of GR, we would be compacted into a tiny blob, since all the space between are cells and atoms would not try to fill the reference. This does not preclude a continuity going from, "maximum magnification Zulu" that decays magnification until we reach normal zero reference.

What Einstein did was advance classical physics into the next level. The age of enlightment was heading toward higher and higher levels of clarity. With relativity, it became scientific, once again, to drift off into the nebulous worlds of imaginary science. It was an example of math making predictions before experiments. Before that, the approach was experients and then the math as an addendum. If we introduced string theory back then, it would have been called alchemy. Einstein took some of the starch out of the stuffed shirts of science, to make this possible. This social change was also reflected in the art change of that time (side topic). It changed from impressionist where clarity was becoming fuzzy. Or science was getting deeper than its own experimental capability. At the turn of the 20th century, abstract art reflected, abstract thinking. Another thing about Einstein was his personna. He was not the cold, arrogant and cynical scientist, but a kindly grandfather figure that made science far more approachable to the masses. He was the nice guy that the majority of people could identify and relate to. If he had been a arrogant fool, his appeal to the masses would be far less. He got squeezed out of the game by others, who had the proper physics personna. Einstein was an example of the nice guy starting in front and finishing last. His image continues to bridge scientists and layman. He appeals across all the boundries of knowledge and science, like no other modern scientist. Sometimes critical acclaim for and by the experts, doesn't filter down to history. Einstein survives both in his science and his spirit.

Consciousness is a living control system that allows interaction with the environment. Higher animal consciousness has more multiple choices built into the control system to allow a much greater range of adaption. Where human consciousness differs from animal consciousness is, we have two centers of consciousness. We have the one that animals have plus a second center that allows us choices beyond the control system. For example, our instincts, that urge us to sleep, etc., are controlled by an unconscious control system that is similar to what animals have. We can override this, but eventully the control system will win. This control systemn was probably all prehumans had, with invention spontanoeus. There was no secondary center, so it was monkey see and monkey do. It wasn't until the secondary center stabilized that civilization could form. Now there was a second point of view that could think independantly. This evolutionary change is what the religious people refer to as Adam. It took a million years for pre-humans to gain a first grade education. Once the secondary center appeared, the rate accelerated. Anyone involved in psychology knows how important the unconscious center is. Most people are unaware of its impact, and assume the secondary is all. The secondary is sort of the child on the bike, who thinks he is riding, but remains unaware that the parent is the one stabilizing the bike. If you look at amazing athletic feats, this is usually not due to the secondary center trying to willfully show off. These occur when the primary center takes control and to creates situation that are difficult to reproduce. The perfect 10 creates as much amazement for the athlete. The primary center has layers below the secondary center, which we can override. But it also have layers above that extend human capabilities. The ego or secondary center can reason but the primary center inspires. For example, Einstein knew the anwer before the solution. He then had to use his secondary center to create the solution for other secondaries. They were working under the assumption they were riding the bike, alone. They could see the Einstein's parent, holding him up, but were unconscious of their own parent holding them. So Einstein had to learn to ride by himself so the others could see he was doing it, like they thought they were.

The tiny space inside the blackhole, relative to our reference, can not be due to the having a reference similar to SR. If this was near a C reference, it would see itself occupying a very large region of space. Or the matter would have to spread out instead of compact to achieve that. With SR if we start with matter all spread out of over that same space and increase the space's velocity to near C, it will only look contracted to us, but it would still occupy the same amount of space. These are opposite affects where one physically gets smaller and other only apparently.

Free will can be explained with a classical model using multiple choice. If we put an apple, orange, pear, grapes and peach on a table. All of these choices will have the same affect relative to satifying hunger. No matter which one you pick, it will still do the same thing relative to the body. The free will is usually not even free will, since people are often biased to pick one or the other, such that unconsciousness makes their choice. Free will would imply the ability to chose any one, without any bias. Most people pretend free will and explain preprogrammed bias as their free choice. The human brain is set up in a way to maximize adapation. The best way to do this is to offer multiple choices. Smart design also adds failsafes, which buffer the mechanism during the biased short term choices. One can suvive on pizza and beer for decades, even though not optimum.

I did this contrast in another post, but would like to present it again as a topic starter. Let us start with general relativity by looking at a box of space. If we place a blackhole in the center, such that the impact of the blackhole, has little impact on the walls of the imaginary box, then what we have essentially done is increase the amount of space, without actually increasing the size of the box. If anything the box will get slightly smaller. In other words, before the blackhole it would take us t-time to move from one side to the other. With the blackhole, if we go through it, we may never reach the other side but appear to be falling into it forever. The net affect is the apparent distance has increased without increasing box size. The simplest way to explain this is the blackhole magnifies distance. As an analogy, say we had 1 cm of water on a microscope. It will only take a small amount of time to go from one side to the other. If we look through the microscope, so we can see a one cell critter, and follow it from one side to the other, one would get the impression distance has increased. Looking at the microscope slowly moving to follow the critter, from the outside, would create the impression the microscope is barely moving. It may take months to scan 1 cm using the critter's microscopic reference. This is consistent with the GR affect. The box will shrink slightly. The falling into the blackhole, apperas to increases distance because it magnifies distance, so reference changes into the microscopic world. The practical advantage of this is, it allows us to see the space between. This allows gravity to make more efficient use of space for closer packing. Special relativity acts in the opposite way. It is more like a telescope affect that allows more distance to be covered in much less time. In an SR reference, distance contracts allowing us to transverse the box of space, in our reference, in less time, relative to a stationary reference. The person on the stationary reference, see the telescope scanning from galaxy to galaxy in very short time. In the stationary reference, the telescope should only have moved a few inches in t-time. But in the telescope reference, in that same amount of t-time, we have been able to jump from galaxy to galaxy. This contrast is consistent with all the mathematical predicitons. If we used both a telescope (SR) and a microscope (GR) at the same time, the result should be a cancelling affect that can return us to zero reference. In others words in we started with the primordial atom, which is high in GR or reflects the microscope where space is used with extreme efficiency, all we need to do is add the telescope of SR (rapid expansion), to create a combined reference, that is neither magnified or telescoped. This allows matter to change reference to where occupies zero reference space. I was always under the impression both GR and SR did the same. But this always led to esoteric explanations for the GR affect. It makes more sense that they are opposite, with the microscope of GR able to create more apparent space simply by magnifying reference, with minimal box impact.

The US is heading toward the next presidential election. The Democratic candidates are trying to show off for the camera, while also attempting to do damage control, since they worked so hard go against all Iraq policy. The bottom line is they are required to be contrary. They are not allowed to be objective to anything positive but have to criticize all. It is part of the political game since anything positive makes them look bad. I understand the rules of political games, but it was pitiful seeing laymen, simply due to their positions of authority, pretending to be more of an expert than one of the most decorated experts in miltary affairs. It would be like Einstein's boss, telling him how to do physics. He would have to sit there and take this idiot's advice, because this is his boss and defending yourself could mean problems. If the general had turned it around and demonstrated their ignorance, to save face, they would now have find a tactic to disgrace him. By disgracing him ,that would deflect what he said and neutralize the impact. The general was smart enough to know that he could win the battle but he would lose the war. Polititians are experts at illuison and spin. Once they start to distort reality, it is hard for someone to fight back before mortal damage has been done. For example, the politians could simply leak, the general wears women's underwear. The media would run with this scandal under the guise it was a credible source but they can't reveal the source due to press rights. Once the humiliation occurs, even if the truth corrects the record, it will be too late, because the joke with be part of pop culture. He did the right thing, which is let them win the battle so he could fight war. He could have ambushed the pack of idiots with rational tactics, but the pack will then ambush him with propaganda tactics more in line with terrorists. It bring up a basic human observation. It is easier to pretent to be an expert by being critical, than to look like an expert by being honest. Honest objectivity also implies knowing one's limitations, which can make you appear a little soft. But the critic only has to put on a mask of conviction, using negativity to create the illusion of expertice. There is an old saying, still waters run deep, i.e., general. While shallow waters shows turbulence and the appearance of activity, but only on the surface.

Conservativism is different now because times have changed. For example, the breakup of the core family added all types of social problems. A good case in point are the African Americans. Back in the 1950's the family was strong but segregation was keeping them from enjoying the American dream. All Martin Luther King asked was an even shake. The black community was strong and only needed opportunity. In current times, there is about 80% less discrimination. But what also happened was the family unit was destroy for a large segment of this population. The result is, where the family remained strong there is far more American dream. Where the family is weak there is poverty, illiteracy, high crime, etc.. Looking at only this segment of the blacks, one gets the impression there is still a high level of discrimination. But in reality the loss the core family neutralized all the social benefits. If one look at the data, to see the family correlation for the blacks, those with a stable family core are going much better. But even suggesting this reality data would be called political incorrect. The correct way is to ignor the underlying problem, and then pour money into the situation, with the hope it will get better. The Conservative is hogged tied by this. They can't preach common sense, or they are portrayed as trying to impose religion. But they can't see wasting money on band-aids, over a simple treatment so they are called cold and insensitive. What has happened, the Democrats and liberals are like a nagging wife, who has screwed up and can't admit it. The Republicans are the hen peck husband. One can see this everyday with the Demo's alway complaining and criticizing, while doing the things they project on the Republicans. The Repulicans should fight back, but know this is not how you deal with a nagging wife. She will only nag more trying to deflect any blame. Bush fired a dozen attorney generals but Clinton fired ten dozen. It is different when the nagging wife does it. The Republican try to keep the family together and avoid confrontation, so they say, yes dear, and then do what they think is in the best for the the family. He decides to invest the money in the future, so she won't spend it all on her hairbrain schemes. It is not like in the old days, when the man's home was his castle. The wicked witch of the west now lives there. She is charming but is constantly complaining and trying to fix problems that she created the last time she tried to fix a problem. She can't see that or admit that, so she blames her husband. He has to do his best to stay one step ahead. It came down to, if you can't beat the nag, beat her at her own game. The idea is to spend the money first, but on things that create jobs. All the defense spending creates a lot of good paying jobs. When people earn money from a good job and can buy a house, they feel empowered. With that empowerment comes the American dream which means family. With less dependancy then you also give a tax decrease. This puts more money in the economy where it amplifies. Govenment decreases the value of money via inefficiency, so one gets less for the dollar. Inspite of the tax decrease and high miltary spending the national debt is falling. Conservative values implies loving your enemy. That is why inspite of the Democrats having more corruption still in place, the Republicans take the heat. The hen pecked husband puts it nose to the grindstone and makes flour. But according to the nagging wife he is cheating them. The conservative are showing their values by sticking with their nag.

If you look at the evolution of the immune systems of animals, this occurs due to exposure. Some animals build up a natural resistance and the one that don't expire. Medicine is useful ,as long as culture stays fixed and organized. But if there was a sudden loss of culture, the alternative medicine people may have a selective advantage, in that their placebos resulted in their body's own immune system keeping up with nature. Here is something I could never understand. The price of medical care has risen drastically. If the medical state of the art was improving health, shouldn't the amount of medical care actually be falling with time? If an auto maker introduced a new model, and every year the maintanence cost increased, one would assume that they were adding defects. If they were making improvements the cost of maintanence should be falling. The only thing increasing is life expectancy, but medical defects are rising. We are more dependant that ever, on medical mechanics to keep us going.

I am aware of the current thinking on the subject. I get the impression it is taboo to discuss anything that makes life simpler. The simple negative charge repulsion dynamics, I discussed, are all logically consistent. I will add a few more. The DNA double helix is covered in negative charge. This negative charge is repulsive to other negative charge on the DNA, and would like to separate and get as far away as possible. The hydrogen bonding keeps the double helix together with all the negative charge making it easier to separate the double helix, compared to if the DNA had been designed not to have any negative charge on the surface. Losing negative charge on the surface what happens we we pack DNA with packing proteins. The packing will cancel out the negative charge for less repulsion. The double helix is now sturdier and the lack of negative charge makes it possible for the DNA to pack tighter and tighter. When we unpack the DNA, the negative charge is again exposed. This causes the DNA to have to spread out due to charge repulsion. The spreading out then makes it easier for the dynamics of transcription. Another observation is, the spread out or active genes are found closer to the nuclear membrane compared to the packed genes. This would suggest that the nuclear membrane is slightly positive. This is consistent with the nuclear membrane disappearing during the condensation of the doubled chromosomes when the DNA is fully packed. There is now little negative charge to help compensate for positive, causing evacuation. The nuclear membrane only returns where the DNA's negative charge is exposed. It has a natural attraction for the exposed negative charge of the unpacked DNA, which then stays close to the nuclear membrane and vice versa. This atrraction puts the active DNA in the best spot to get rid of the mRNA that forms, as the accumulation of negative charge, super charges the nucleus. The nuclear membrane offers a slight positive santuary before being transport out. I would expect the pores of the nuclear membrane will contain proteins with extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen. I am going to go in a different direction to show additional negative charge affects. When the cell enters the cell cycle, the amount of ATP production rise.s It is really high when the DNA is being duplicated. What happens in the cell to make this possible, is the membrane potential lowers. This lowering of the inside membrane negative charge makes charge room for the increasing negative charge of the ATP. Without that change the cell's internal limit of negative charge would be exceeded. I am saying it is one way or the other. The charge adds an addtional layer of bulk dynamics that makes the highly detailed stuff easier. When life was just forming, these bulk affects set the skeleton for improvements.

You are sort of correct. The analogy can be seen if we compare Newtonian gravity to relativity. The relativity addendum is not needed for most situations one will encounter. But as velocity gets extreme, or close to the speed of light, then relativistic affects become more pronounced. A good way to look at it is assume you are traveling near C. Ones velocity will determine the time reference. If we accelerate from there, there is no longer a constant velocity such that time reference is also accelerating. If this acceleration was due to a gravity field that was getting stronger as we approach it, then even our rate of acceleration is also accelerating. The time vector would be a way to calculate changes we would experience. I don't know if this is the correct analogy, but here goes. We often use a position vector for a force applied to a gear. We have our torque, with the direction of force at some odd angle in 3-D space, such that all the force is not being used for mechanical advantage. At V near C, we have steady state. But during the transitions of double acceleration there is a time distortion where steady state is not able to form with finite matter systems. The system will take time to stabilize, but may not under certain conditions. It is sort of like the force vector shearing the gear, alterring the ideal force impulse ,that would be transmitted if the shear was not affecting the torque. Or the affective force gets alterred to create a nonideal force, more in line with another force?

I am not exactly clear what the different between the quantum and classical model is beyond time scale of relavant events. If we compare classical to newtonian and quantum to relativity, then most of the conscious or day-to-day aspects of the brain would be classical. They can be explained with just basic physical chemical type affects. The quantum would be the more progressed phenomena, i.e., relativity, like the apparent space-time distortions and pertubation associated with ESP and such. These do not follow known classical principles. One gets human virtual pairs that know what each other is thinking. This type of phenomena would need quantum theory to explain it. Science creates a problem here, since these areas are deemed fantasy science, by classical models of the brain. The classical science stays away from anything not explanable with physical chemistry. The quantum scientists may try to exploit the talents of our more bizzare human bretheren, to see if they can help create some quantum affects. Some work has been done, but not by the most talented physicists. The psychic can't guess all the objects on the table with high reliability. But maybe at the quantum level, some affects may be more reliable. I remember in High School, a friend of mine was part of this Silva mind control group, led by a psychic woman, Ramona. It sounded rather weird but seemed harmless enough. He got me to go and the instructor asked me to stay for the weekend session, and allowed me to sit in for free. I had nothing to lose, so I tried to be open. Everyone was really nice and very positive. The first day was the basic indocrination, that taught some basic healing and pain control techniques, that I still periodically use. During the second day we did what they called cases. These were index cards, which had the name of a person with medical condition, taken from world wide members, who had been through the program. What we would do is have one person with 10 cards, and the other person would be opposite, with eyes closed, trying to visualize, until they came up with the condition. It was the most amazing thing. Everyone that day, i.e, 25 people, were hitting home runs. The youngest kids were really amazing with the ease they were able to rattle off "the belly is sore (apendix).", or their heads hurts (migraines), etc.. The one case that still sticks in my mind, to this day; I saw a women lying on a table, covered with a sheet. I couldn't see what was wrong because of the sheet. The other person said, take off the sheet and look. I did and she was pregnant. I could see her face as clear as day and could describe her with a lot of detail. It may have been thought transference, but irregardless, it was non-classical. The point I was trying to make is such things do occur in pockets. If one is at the right place at the right time, they do often occur. But a quantum approach may tell us if some quantum affects occur, which do not always translate into classical model output.