pioneer

There is objective reality and subjective reality. Free speech was intended to prevent subjective reality from trumping objective reality. If you yell fire, and there is no fire, subjectivity is being used to alter objective reality, in a subjective way, to create a panic. This is not free. On the other hand, if we have a philosophy, which has elements of subjectivity, it can be used to fog objectivity. The free speech is needed to point out this subjectivity, so people can become more objective to that philosophy. If we restrict speech, objectivity can become subjective. Political correctness defines the proper use of language and restricts free speech. This is partially objective. Certain words can make people feel uncomfortable, so there is a cause and effect reaction. However, the foundation of the effect is learned behavior, stemming from subjectivity. There is no natural cause and effect between sounds and reactions, until one is subjectively told how to react. If I said a bunch of swears in another language, it may not offend anyone. The meaning is the same, but the reaction to the sounds are subjectively different. I may say somewhere the world, "may your goats give sour milk", and start a fight. But most other places don't have this conditioned reaction, with the natural reaction more of a giggle. Say we use the PC template a different way. We train you to react to X with hate. Anytime X is brought up you need to get mad. Also, we will tell you that Y will make you feel better. We then prevent anyone from ever saying X again so we all feel better. We can manipulate you to accept a subjective standard, by taking away free speech. Rather than deal with the conditioned reactions, because of free speech, one is required to ignore the core subjectivity training, by focusing on the superficial conditioned cause and effect reaction. Once you get used to that, there is swamp land that I would like to show you. When you see, it you will make you feel good. Free speech concerning X, although inducing the conditioned reaction of hate, places the reaction in front of everyone, so you can become objective to the training. You may get tired of feeling mad and ask yourself why am I being mad? I was told to be mad. It turns out X is full of crap and Y is no bargain either. Free speech led to greater objectivity at the core of the subjective conditioning, but it first had to get past the conditioned cause and effect on the surface. The trick of PC is too focus on the conditioned cause and effect on the surface, since it seems to be a legitimate restriction of free speech; add more objectivity. But this is not deep enough to realize, at the core of this reaction is subjective conditioning that needs objectivity via free speech.

Proof can also be relative to the times. For example, if we go back 100 years in science, many science theories had also been proven, yet many have been superseded. Before relativity we could vigorously prove Newton's laws of gravity. Yet Einstein came along to show, that what had been proven, was no longer 100% valid. Don't get me wrong, proof is important. But history shows that all the proof in the world, can at times, still result in a temporary life expectancy for theory. If you look at the Newton-Einstein example given, what was more fundamental, was not the proof, but the conceptual framework for the proof. This has become watered down in modern times, since we rely too much on probability and random. This allows bad proof to be filtered out, so less than perfect conceptual models can linger. If Newton had figured out the statistical technique, Einstein could have been nipped in the bud. We could have said, Newtonian is valid within a margin of error and then treated the new Einstein theory as trying to reinvent the wheel. Back in the day, the same level of bad proof would not be allowable like today, since the old timer didn't use the modern fudge math. That is why back then was called the golden age of science. Now it is more like the silver and bronze age; semi-rational since cause and effect are not necessary for conceptual models.

There is a big difference between useful and useless information. For example, there are trillions of units of information on the internet, but only a fraction of this will be useful information for any given search. If we wanted to know about dogs, we would not randomly walk the internet. A random walk would take a long time to get a proper hit; too much useless information relative to need. We would narrow down by typing dog. This will bring up 101,234 hits in 0.01 sec.. You then filter this to get the most useful information. This might be done by random walk. If you have no goal in mind, but are just surfing the web to learn random things, a random walk can bring up useful information every step of the walk. This is more like the existing theory of evolution that has no goal in mind. But if we did this over the process of the day, the sum of all that information would not form a coherent whole. We may get some random overlap of coherency but it would be mostly little piles of dissociated information, even if it was useful information by itself.

Since we can't directly observe the core of a star, one can only guess. My guess is there is both forward and reverse fusion/fission reactions, with forward slightly favored. Unlike a hydrogen bomb which can separate distances to inhibit reversal, a stella core is very high pressure keeping products closer. If it was only forward, one would expect stars to act like huge H-bombs, with the fusion process accelerating as the amount of activation energy accelerates. But if we remove heat/energy fast enough, we can inhibit a runaway burn. The easiest way is to increase the mass/energy of the some of the products back to reactants, since they are at the correct parameters to absorb. There is no waste, since these will go forward, eventually.

As history shows, the events of Jesus would alter the western world. Putting aside belief or lack thereof, there was a long term historical impact that was not a fad, but which took root, spread and evolved as time went on. It gained selective advantage, with Christians nation of Europe colonizing the world in the 1400-1800's. Evolution is not about only sweet cuddly koala bears. There was also T-rex and then finally the rise of warm blooded critters. This is all part of its continuing evolution. I

As history shows, the events of Jesus would alter the western world. Putting aside belief or lack thereof, there was a long term historical impact that was not a fad, but which took root, spread and evolved as time went on. It gained selective advantage, with Christians nation of Europe colonizing the world in the 1400-1800's. Evolution is not about only sweet cuddly koala bears. There was also T-rex and then finally the rise of warm blooded critters. This is all part of its continuing evolution. I

Maybe one explanation to bridge the gap, is the phenomena of relativity have been proven to occur, but explaining why this occurs has not been agreed upon. As an analogy, this is like saying if I hold the baseball this way along the seams and throw it, it will curve. This has been proven again and again. But why this curving motion occurs (using the relativity analogy) we can't say, but we can predict where it will curve and by how much. This might leave a less than sympathetic audience feeling that maybe this curve thing works, but since they can't explain the most fundamental why, is there something missing from the theory that still needs to be added? The math can get a bit a hairy if one is not trained in math. But there is nothing in the math that tells us why. It only says it does and by how much. That could mean it is more of a correlation for a natural effect, but not a fundamental source of information on the whys?

One way to look at sin, is to compare will power to compulsion. A compulsion is easier to follow. It only amounts to pushing an unconscious button, and then letting the effect lower its own potential in the fastest way. Willpower often remains at higher mental potential longer. For example, say we need a new computer. If we were animals we could steal it and lower the unconscious potential, quickly. With sin and will power, one can't just lower this energy potential quickly, with stealing, but will need to let the potential of the need, linger. We may sublimate that lingering mental energy, with a job and weeks of work to save up. We then lower the potential; buy the computer. The analogy is we can let the water flow over the waterfall via the compulsion (natural), or set up a dam to generate mental electricity. Religion builds more dams than the atheists. The atheist try to knock down the dams. This may make an atheist more calm and rational. The higher potential of the religious is often the source of mental energy that makes the atheist uneasy, since this potential can get too high and crack the dam; terrorists. But if it is done properly, using time test methods, it leads to a lot of useful mental energy. The Saints have their own dams, but also learned to harness the mental energy to do things way beyond themselves. If you even wondered where little Mother Teresa got her drive and energy...If she has lowered the mental potential using compulsions, she would have had much less energy to give. She may have only had energy for herself. The "me" generation is also the generation that lost most of its dams. To keep the mental energy high, this takes constant external stimulus. We need to keep the flow over the waterfall high by feeding the river up stream. But fads are like temporary rain storms.

You guys are working under the assumption of no cause and effect due to a bias in biology. If we look at the DNA and random changes for new information, the odds are we should be generating bad information at a higher rate than good information, since there are more things we can randomly do to mess up a cell than to advance a cell. Say we have 10,000 functional proteins, each with 1000 animo acids. If we randomly change the animo acids, the odds are we should be messing up the functional proteins faster than we are adding improvements. There are more sour spots than sweet spots, especially in you consider protein trains. If we assume random, evolution should not occur and life should constantly abort faster than progressing. Even a functional change in one protein can mess up a train if the new functionality does not coordinate. But thanks to cause and effect, the sour spots are ignored at a higher than random rate, so good information is favored. Algorithms are fabricated based on assumptions that overlook the slow rate of bad information. Turn the discussion to a random walk for bad information. One will see there are problems with fundamental assumptions compared to observation.

I read somewhere that the color of the ocean water effects its heating. Water that is greener and murkier can absorb heat better than clear water. With clear water the heat transfer goes deeper so the surface water is cooler. This means as algae grows, due to higher CO2, the water warms faster causing the thermal currents to move faster from equator to poles. Global warming due to CO2 may lower the thermal gradient between equator and poles, but the higher CO2 also means higher algae to increase the thermal gradient. The currents last longer since the two CO2 effects are moving the gradients in opposite directions.

The path from reactants to products moves along a curve such as shown below; An enzyme will lowers the height of the activation energy hill, but often only in one direction. If we go the other way, the original curve applies. This will shift equilibrium, away from the original curve in favor of the direction of the new lower activation energy hump. For example, say the enzyme worked left to right. To use a number, the left-right activation hump is now half as tall. To go the other way, or right to left, the product has to climb the full height as shown above. That means it is now much easier to go left to right, (compared to the pure reaction), shifting the equilibrium to the right.

Say we have an equation, which we can also plot as a graph. We can use a random walk on the graph paper to generate that same locus of points (useful information). Or we can use the equation to plot the locus of points, directly, generating the useful information at a much faster rate. The point is, if there is cause and effect (equation implies this specific locus of points), random walking can never keep up with the rate of useful information generation. If life developed and evolved with considerable cause and effect, useful informational generation can out pace a random walk any day. Therefore we need cause and effect sprinkled in with random at a given proportion.

I tend to think much of the bible is figurative, since this is an easier way to reach people and imprint a memory that can be used for lossless transmission, so it can spread. Christ said the kingdom of god is like the mustard seed. It starts out as a tiny seed and grows to become one of the largest plants. Anyone could follow the analogy. It is easy to remember and one can transfer the thought without a lot of data loss. Others start there and begin to translate/extrapolate. The original audience had limited education, but would still have common sense and practical experience of life. With an audience of limited education, you can lose your audience if you start to use too much jargon and/or get bogged down in details that escape them. Their memory will retain the mustard seed analogy, making it easier to spread to others. If they tried to repeat the technical discussion, they daydreamed through, most of that is forgotten and data transfer has high loss. For example, try to explain the atom to 1st grade students. You might say, the atom is like the tether ball in the playground. Instead of a stick in the middle, we have a huge heavy round ball in the middle. Once you hit the ball on the string, it keeps going in circles. This is not true, but a fundamental lesson was learned. If we talked about wave functions, they are lost. Which lesson will they be able to go home and tell their parents and friends with lossless transmission? Later the scholars use the mustard seed analogy to extrapolate meaning. But the tetherball is one of those funny memories that lingers always and will be told to young students even after they find out this is not predicted by the wave functions.

Shellfish can turn CO2 into an inorganic state (the shell) that is more permanent, compared to the organic fixation of CO2 by plants. A plant will fix CO2, but when it dies most of the CO2, within the wood or plant material, will be returned to the earth. for recycle. A shell is longer term storage.

Say we did the taxes and redistribution using grades in college instead of income. We have students who are bright, and others who work real hard who also get good grades. There are others who are less gifted, as well as those who go to too many Frat parties and like to play. What we will do is set up a grade tax to redistribute grade wealth, with the A's needing give a higher percent of their grade than the B's, then C's etc. For the A's to keep an A they may need to do a lot of extra credit work beyond their course load. But since they are in the highest grade bracket 50-75% of that work will be given away to help boost the lower end of the grade spectrum. They get to keep some. Those who are about to fail, they might get a grade boost to passing. They might even be people who can do better, but find they can coast and party at D and still get a C due to a grade tax support program. Why is this not done in colleges or high schools?

It is always better if one can prove something. However, sometimes proof can get very expensive, restricting who can come up with the proof. For example, before a drug can be marketed, it has to go through long and expensive testing to meet FDA standards. The average Joe is eliminated from this proof circuit due to lack of resources. Even if he is correct, he can't afford proof. A worse drug could theoretically provide the expensive proof, to create the illusion of a better drug. Joe may have to sell to someone with proof money to level the field. If we put too much stock into proof, it is possible, we can also narrow down provable science, anyway we wish. For example, Global warming put more bucks into one side, so it has a better chance to monopolize proof, creating the illusions this is more provable. If we spread the bucks in the opposite direction, we can make that more provable. Say we get 1 unit of proof per $1M, the side with more proof money wins. That is why, although proof is important, it can be manipulated, to direct science.

What we would find is that the dream symbols tend to fall into basic categories. This is due to the collective unconscious. There are basic human propensities common to all humans, similar to the way an animal species has common traits. With humans this is more elaborate with the symbols in dreams telling which are which. For example, when animals appear in dreams they indicate our instincts. We all have instincts. There can be friendly or hostile animals, depending on our relation to instinct. Different animals are often connected to various instincts. There are also intelligent animals, like in fairy tales, such as a talking rabbit. These can be helpful or hurtful. The extra human characteristic added to an animal is implicit of a human modification of natural instinct. When Alice in Wonderland follows the talking rabbit, she is following her instincts, but not natural instinct. This causes her get into all types of trouble. Besides symbols, colors and shapes also have meaning. The white rabbit of Alice in Wonderland, implies a pure animal (white). Rabbits are fertility symbols, so this instinct has a connection to sexuality, with the talking white rabbit, maybe connected to her religious virginity. The rabbit always checking his clock and saying he is late, could be analogous to her biological clock, way before science labeled this.

The DNA has proof reading enzymes that go over the duplicated DNA to correct base pairing mistakes. The number of mutated genes starts higher, with the proof reading enzymes reducing this to only a few typo's. The improper base pairing means more potential in the hydrogen bonds, since they don't match perfectly. The proof readers feel along the DNA until they feel this extra potential in an improper base pair (mutation) and then lower this potential via proper base pairing. These enzymes lower entropy within the DNA, by taking away its source of energy. Now the deck of cards starts is less shuffled than before.

Humans are capable of generating language, body language and behavioral output, that does not reflect what is going on inside. This is harder for an animal. For example, the poker player can't allow his body language to reveal his hand to the other players. The other players, like observational scientists, are keenly observing all the external data from the other players, for tells and signs, so they can try to guess the relative value of each other's hand. The good bluffer, will alter the corresponding output data, relative to what is going on inside. The animal is easy to read, since when his tail wags he has a good hand. But humans can trick this cause and effect. This would make science difficult, if all of science had this data collection problem. It would be like trying to study the stars, while aliens are messing with the matter; HeHe. One may draw what appears to be sound conclusions , but in the end it was a bluff. The advertising agency will create an external data ambience and then try to get their product to overlap under the induced ambience mist, so the external data seems to indicate brand X is better at attracting mates. It works all the time. Picture if while science was running an experiment, I messed with the instrument calibration, so the instrument is now always biased high, so I can get the result I need for my company. Based on the external data we draw a certain conclusion. This is not something most of science has to deal with as a matter of course. With psychology, it can take a long time to get to the real output, since both conscious and even unconscious effects can create poker face as well as signs and tells. Humans are not a straight forward phenomena.

The assumption of random is only a special case when it comes to living systems. One way to explain this is to consider a new deck of cards where the four suits are initially stacked, one top of each other, each in numerical order. To make this deck fully randomized we need to add enough energy via the shuffle machine. Say instead, we only cut the deck in half and flip the two halves into itself once (not enough energy for full randomization), all the odds change. If we assume this single shuffle was a random system (not knowing there was not enough energy for a full card randomization), certain results would continue to appear, like dealing two players constant straight flushes , that may seem totally improbable. Life is a much about order as shuffle, with the deck never fully shuffled. This changes the odds in favor of life. Probability has a connection to entropy, with entropy needing energy. Let us start with a six sided dice. The odds of the dice work under the assumption we have enough energy in the toss to fully randomize the odds for all the six sides. Say we use less energy or just enough entropy to tip the dice 90 degrees, but not enough to tip it 180 degrees. Under this level of random-entropy-energy, there are only five sides of the dice that have a probability of appearing. The bottom side can't occur. In cells, there are areas of the DNA that are more prone to mutation and there are other areas that are much less so. The energy for randomization is only sufficient to move the dice 90 degrees. Maybe we need to develop the statistics of low entropy systems to help us predict the best places to look for mutations in organized systems. In our deck of cards, that we cut and flipped once, the odds for straight flushes is higher than two of a kind. This allows cells to evolve in style.

Freud was a pioneer in his day. His long term affair with his wife's sister, while married, indirectly allows us to infer how sexuality was on his mind. This wife was more a traditional wife who was the matriarch of the house. His sister-in-law hung on his every word like a date. Based on his internal observations of his strong sexual impulses in light of his relationship to his wife, he tried to extrapolate this as a general rule for human behavior. Although sex is one of the strongest natural urges, it is one among many, with a more complete system able to take into account all the impulses, as well as the possible combinations. If Freud had preferred food, his theory may have been connected to the nurturing, depriving or over-loading mother. This may be reasonable for that one instinct. It would then set a basic pattern for the psyche from which other orientations would spin-off. As a loose analogy, if Freud invented rap music, others would copy his basic style, but take it in new directions, or even to another level, by adding additional music and voice content. But still, Freud was a pioneer of psycho-rap. I liked his star student, Carl Jung, better. He was suppose to carry on the tradition, but went his own way after he and Freud has a bad fight. Jung's theory of the archetypes of the collective unconscious was his pioneer attempt to map out the diversity of the psyche instead of one impulse. The Freudian ID was differentiated into an array of deeper and deeper layers of collective human propensities. The problem was Jung's orientation's next logical step, was to collect internal data. From the outside looking in, Jung's orientation appeared too mystical and religious, since he used these sources collective symbolism. This may have touched upon an atheist taboo. Back in the day, to move psychology, from the outskirts of science, to make it more mainstream science, the founders knew they had to follow the rules of science. This meant outside, looking in, collecting data in the third person, that is repeatable and treatable (applications). Other theories became more practical, using the science external POV. The Jung's internal proof was left unfinished. I was a Jungian pioneer of sort, when I was much younger who tried to generate the internal data. Jungian map was the guide but the data observed led to new details and twists in the dynamics, which helped me extend his map.

Another way to look at this issue is connected to economics. It has been nine years and the too many bickering boneheads can't agree on what to build on the WTC site. NYC is broke and needs jobs. So out of frustration, the pivotal moment of crap or get off the pot, was reached. The Mosque project came along, scratched the right palms and offers an economic step move forward. This may put a fire under the foot dragging bones heads, to finally crap and get off the pot. Now the bidding starts at about $250M. From a tactical point of view, the Mayor has all the cards and can play the hand backwards to a memorial project, making use of public outrage to gracefully change the site plans. He comes out looking clean and might still be able to get a secondary Mosque project somewhere else in the city. 2 for 1 economic deal.

Could the theory also apply to atheism? For example, most scientists are atheists. If one wanted to move up the ladder, and this majority was ragging on religion, one might feel they are a hostage to the atheist majority. Their future is under the control of their captors, so don't upset them. Eventually, you learn to empathize, since beyond this one thing they are people. But it can also be like a born again atheist experience. Then you seek out birds of a feather to share that moment of enlightenment.

The brain/mind generates internal data. Common sense says you need to observe internal data, internally, not externally. One would not collect external data by looking inside their imagination. This makes as much sense as collecting internal data from the outside. From the outside there will always be a difference between what is actually occurring in the mind and what the evolving machines can pick up. This means external theory will always be slightly off from internal reality. From the outside is like looking at an alien computer running a program but without a monitor. We might try to use a huge NMR to look inside the programming. From the inside is like adding a cheap monitor and a set of speakers so we can see what the computer is actually generating. What you would need is someone who is trained in existing theory, so they are somewhat prepared for what they may encounter. This gives them enough background to be able to make as many objective observations as possible, based on what we know and expect. Then we lower them down into the deep. Their diving bell is analogous to their support theory. It may be designed to work better in shallow water and might start to leak under the higher pressure. This is the fear. The resourceful expert may be able to make some repairs in the field. If not, we pull our expert diver up, retool and try again. As the diving bell design improves, we eventually make it all the way to the bottom. Machine will helpful in the shallows, but without ever seeing the deep, even if you can see signals from the surface, we may not know what the signals mean, until we go down to take a look.

This theory does not explain those who call themselves born again. If we apply the theory, this would suggest someone who is watching a hostage situation on the TV, decides to sneak into the hostage room to joyfully become a hostage. It is not that simple. They were born again because something inside their mind/brain self triggered an affinity. Say someone who was interested in computer games, decides to go to a gaming convention. This is not by force even if the hosts are pitching product. They are there because they get to share what they like with others, who like this just as much as they do. They feed off each other helping each other recreate those memorable gaming moments.