cladking

Thank you very much. This leads to two more questions. Is this carapace/ pronotum believe to help protect it from predation by birds? Is there much variation in the thickness of the exoskeleton vis a vis dorsal and ventral aspects? The root question is; Could the pronotum ever be considered part of a dorsal exoskeleton rather than just an adjunct to the entire exoskeleton? I understand that it is not classified as such now. I'm trying to understand a very ancient reference to the insect which refers to the "dorsal carapace" (if the translation is good) but seems to imply the shape of the abdominal exoskeleton. It certainly seems that if there is a single carapace then calling it the "dorsal carapace" is at the least redundant. There's no reason to believe their classification system would be similar to ours. Any further help would be very appreciated as well. I might add that the translator in this case had little knowledge of biology or anatomy.

I believe the "carapace" protects only the thorax of the grasshopper above the legs. If true is it also true that the abdomen is protected with an exoskeleton? Is this exoskeleton on both dorsal and ventral sides?

We can't really stage it in the way to which I'm referring. Building a dam and placing turbines in the way of a river could be thoughtof as such but it's not the point. Modern science employs observation and experiment and it matters little if the scientist is observing an experiment or something "natural". Experiments simply lead more directly to theory. But this isn't the way ancient science worked. If results are based on logic then it simply follows that anything you do to affect observation is "cheating" and will affect outcomes, conclusions, and theory. I'm sure they did actually plan many observations and along various parameters. For instance if you want to observe bats you don't go looking for them at noon. If you want to see tides then you attend to the moon. "Experiment" is certainly a staging of nature since all variables have to be excluded or accounted for. You need to isolate the thing you want to see. It's done in a lab where everything can be controlled. Certainly experiment occurs in the real world but usually even the simplest experiments don't occur naturally. They require someone to invent them and set them up. Yes. This is modern human science (observation > experiment). This science is unique. Other science is observation > logic. Most of what we consider "experiment" is illegitimate to this process.

"Experiment" is the isolation of variables. It is a sort of staging of the way nature works. This concept would be abhorant to an observation based science. Animals and ancient man seek the ways in which all of nature rhymed with itself. Things that didn't fit ancient science were simply held aside until their pattern was deduced and then confirmed through observation. In a sense you could say that each species has its own science. But be this as it may there are other means to acquire and organize knowledge than experimental science. "Context" to us is language, or perhaps more accurately, knowledge. Without this knowledge reality still exists. And consciousness still exists. We have chosen to understand reality through modern language and beliefs. We have invented experimental science to gain knowledge about nature and we quantify logic to manipulate and understand these laws. We believe we exist because we think, but a rabbit still runs from the fox. Indeed! And when they saw the same sunspots the next morning they would postulate that it was the same sun from the previous day.

If words are adequately defined and are consistent with reality (nature) then science can be carried on through observation and without experiment. I believe this is how animals invent things and how humans operated until 4000 years ago. It can't be done with modern language outside of the individual because results can't be communicated such that progress will occur. Progress is the result of the compounding of knowledge and learning of many individuals over many generations. Today we must use scientific (experimental) terminology for such communication and math is the quantified logic which accompanies it. This is the same effect in philosophy; that little progress is made because of the difficulty of building on the thinking of earlier research. This impacts applied science and all areas of human activity and gives us a warped picture of science and its meaning to individuals. I have no idea how many types of science exist and was rather surprised to find a second one but a little bird told me they are probably all based on observation. Logic must surely underlie all of them but it doesn't have to be the type of math we started with nor any of the maths that exist today. Understanding of reality is not dependent on experiment. A rabbit doesn't need to get caught by a fox to know it needs to get away the next time. Reality exists and we are mere play actors within it. We can write our own script or use one provided but we are still beholden to the foxes of the world. If the script is "wrong" there may be an unhappy ending. There may be an entirely unscripted ending.

I stand corrected. It was my understanding that this was "settled" science and anyone who didn't agree was a knuckle dragging troglodyte. We are afterall spending billions of dollars so it seemed that when naysayers are called "deniers" etc then there must be a pretty strong belief in the computer models. I don't track the US media at all any longer. Most politicians talk out of both sides of their face and vote opposite what they say anyway. It was meant as a more subtle poke at politicians.

I seriously doubt you'd get many in the US Congress who would deny that global warming is a global threat caused by the actions of man. Among these I'd guess the majority would agree rising oceans will be the result. Yet they voted with a majority to use tax-payer money to fund the insurance that will allow cities to be built in low lying areas along the coasts. I'm just guessing as to what Congresspeople believe since there's really no other way to know in almost every case.

Yes. Hipocrisy and greed drive the economy and the indifference of the many allow it. There's always hope and perhaps more now than ever before. People can wake up suddenly and be galvanized behind an event generated by and representative of the trends which made it possible. The pendulum reverses and then we go too far the other way. One of the most frightening things about the current situation is that the pendulum is hyperextended. It achieved this because normally the race couldn't even feed itself with things so lobsided. It was also made possible by the fact that most people feel safe to let others think about complicated subjects and how things work. Part of the mess is the collapse of the educational system which has the effect of exascerbating problems (especially these specific problems) and making them more difficult to rectify. It also means any possible recovery will be measured in generations instead of years.

I'm sorry but I can't see the point of worrying about the planet. We reward the few like never before to dig resources from the earth and convert them to garbage that is shoveled right back in the ground. We invent new ways to destroy products so that waste increases exponentially as billions starve and a few growth rich beyond the dreams of avarice. We release toxins into the enviroment and pump our food full of chemicals in order to make a few wealthy. If all this weren't bad enough we have politicians who claim to believe in global warming and rising oceans and then use tax payer money to assure cities are built right on the waters edge. "Spotted owls" are protected but humans are so much floatsam and the planet is expendable if you think you have enough money to protect yourself. Destruction and borrowing from the future is the order of the day. Hypocrisy and greed fuel an idiocracy. There's no room for humans and there's certainly no room for a future so there's no need to plan for one.

Our science and our language preclude the development of theory outside of math. This doesn't mean observation in support of theory can't be made without math or that hypohesis requires math but the complexity of current science is too great for any simple non-mathematical theory to exist. Modern scientific metaphysics rests on experiment and modern language can be deconstructed to mean almost anything. Scientific language must be precise and not open to ambiguity. It is possible to invent other sciences that are logic based rather than math based. These other sciences could proceed with no math. The human brain isn't capable of the language required but I believe computers could do it. Indeed, it appears animals and early man used just such science.

This is 1940's thinking. I don't necessarily disagree and sometimes I almost feel watched by millions of future generations but our future is hardly certain. The number of ways to go wrong is large and I expect tests in the next century especially. The biggest threats now all relate directly or indirectly to our propensity to believe and act as though we know everything. Certainly the human race has never before had the tremendous opportunities and challenges that face us now. We will prevail but only after a lot of hard work and reversing many of the current trends.

I believe it is everyone's duty to leave the world a better place. One's happiness should to at least some extent derive from leaving the world better than he found it. This isn't to say one must work or have a career but he should generally leave things better than he found it. The only problem with idleness is that it can degenerate into hedonism which will leave one empty and unhappy given enough time. It requires very little work now days for a person to earn enough to cover what the world loses in supporting him. There's no rational reason people need to put in the long hours most do. But they desire to always have more. Suit yourself but never forget your primary duties or things you consider your duty such as family.

I'd have been very happy to read the whole thing but stopped here. The source of most knowledge (other than aunt Edna's birthday) is language. Mebbe I'll go back and read it but I will have very little agreement with it. Edited to add that I short changed the post. It's interesting. I may get back to some of these ideas.

Indeed! "Efficiency" is now defined as the ability to make ever more ever more inferior products at lower cost despite the impact on consumers or the enviroment. We make a million belts at the same cost as we once made 100,000 but belts that once lasted 30 years now won't last six weeks. The CEO gets a huge bonus as people scurry from store to store to buy more belts. If they really were afraid of global warming they'd reinstate taxes on the CEO's and taxes on products to discourage waste. They'd pass laws against selling junk and enforce existing law against pumped up food products. They'd encourage new construction up away from the oceans. Instead they continue their war on coal and blow a lot of hot air. They kill jobs and relocate them to China.

I've been opposed to public policy in the US since 1959 since it was first observed that demand for oil would outstrip US supply in 30 years or less (it was only 11). I've been opposed to waste and inefficiency since the mid-'60's since it was shown conclusively that man was increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere. Up until the early 1980's I believed the height of insanity is to perform an uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have. But now I know that was nowhere near the height of insanity. The true height of insanity is rewarding CEO's for increasing waste and inefficiency by eliminating taxes on them. Now everything we do is geared toward worsening the problem. We shut down highly efficient plants in the US and send the jobs to China which results in greatly increased emissions and far lower efficiency and then ship products around the world at huge expense. We make gasahol that reduces mileage and actually requires more energy to produce than is released. Meanwhile our food products are pumped up with water and Washington DC has gone from the poorest city in the country to the wealthiest in a decade. A building boom exists because business needs infrastructure to run government. This is the same business that brought us the military industrial complex anmd pumped up chickens. It's the same business that is blind to everything past the next quarter. Meanwhile people sit in fear of global warming that seems to exist only in the minds of computers and the words of politicians. We make things even worse to combat this fear. Rather than increasing efficiency that rewards everyone we destroy the planet and enrich the few.

Perhaps big bangs and big crunches are local events. This would imply a far older and far larger universe than normally assumed.

This can't be a legitimate problem since Congress recently approved the tax payer continuing to pay for damages to private and public enterprises in coastal areas. If they really believed the oceans would rise then they'd have encouraged new infrastructure to be built at higher elevations by allowing the free market to force the issue. If Congress doesn't believe in global warming than why should the average man? What do they know that we don't. Temporary ports can be built very quickly.

Apparently you aren't the only one to think so. i mentioned this thread to a friend and he said he saw no such evidence on the sites he frequents. Popcorn Sutton may have a point about people here being different because of a scientific interest. But all the sites I frequent have calmed down quite a lot in the last decade. They used to be like the wild west where it was shoot first and ask questions later. You had to swagger into the sites or everyoine would walk all over you. If you did swagger in the personalities at the top of the pecking order would be gunning for you. Trolls oozed out of the woodwork and people engaged them. Real world threats were not uncommon. I can't help but think some of these kids who behave so poorly might have to pay a high price someday. There's so much storage capacity and it seems every year there is wider access.

I believe this is primarily just culture. People used to take every post they read as a personal insult and now we are more apt to just try to understand the words. God knows it's usually a herculean task. Trolls were mostly created by misunderstanding just like war.

I believe we are far too dependent on machines and technology for this to be a problem. We have more to fear from sabotage of the machines. We have most to fear from the widespread belief that people aren't responsible for their actions. Death and destruction are no longer the result of peoples' actions and inactions. They are simply unavoidable because no one tried to cause mayhem. The incompetent are promoted because their intentions are good. The route to hell is paved in gold. m ,

Government always destroys far more than it creates. A government with unlimited power will express that power through unlimited destruction. All systems derive their power from the people and the people can withdraw their support at will. Oppressors can remain in power only so long as they have this general support.

The driver has always been the exact same thing but we've lost sight of it in the last 4000 years. We've lost sight because of confusion and the propensity of individuals to jump in front of the crowds and pretend to lead while often lead- ing to wars and catastrophy. It is the average Joe who weilds the real power and can always take it back at will. It manifests as demand and must be fullfilled by the system in place. This demand becomes virtually an entity that drives events through its own expression and blind chance. The real economic and political power lies almost solely in the common people who are usually content to allow the "powers that be" to do the grunt work. When their work gets too shoddy or justice is forgotten there will be a new order.

Both parts of the statement are true but the ability touse cognition productively is also associated with cognition so doesn't well separate it from wisdom. Obviously experience is more associated with the ability to use cognition productively than is intelligence. A wise man might not point out so fine a distinction but we otherwise seem to be in close agreement.

Intelligence is the ability to quickly deduce the best solution. Wisdom is knowing the solution or the ability to pick the probable best of all solutions.

You have some interesting perspectives here. It's going to require a lot more thought. Perhaps math is a quality of space and logic is a quality of time. This does seem somewhat poetic. Maybe ARU and a universe where time is the primary component are even related subjects.