Gees

Ark200; Please consider: 1. Tradition is often hundreds or even thousands of years old, so it is time tested. Tradition is usually based on wisdom, which is even older, and has worked for people for generations. I don't see the problem in believing that tradition is the best alternative in most situations. 2. So we should not believe authority? We are in a science forum, so do you think that we should tell all of the scientists that they don't know squat? Or maybe we should just tell the ones who have degrees -- more authority -- that they don't know squat? (chuckle) 3. Regarding "crowd opinion"; if I were a police officer and a large crowd of people agreed that the thief, who ran away, was a tall, thin, blond guy in his 20's, I doubt that I would go looking for a short, fat, black woman in her 50's. Crowd opinion is not always bad. 4. Every time we have a "Eureka!" moment, or when the "light comes on" in our minds, it is a private Revelation. This is learning. Not so bad. A good reason for believing would be to maintain our sanity. Consider that if one does not know what can be believed, then they would not know what is real. It would be like the experience that a schizophrenic has, never knowing what is believable and real or delusion. So I vote for sanity. Even if it turns out that we are wrong in our beliefs, we still have a point to start from -- to learn about our mistakes. Imatfaal; This is all true in my opinion, but I laughed myself silly when I read "herding cats". Good one. John Cuthber; Please consider: Probably, but will it do you any good? Science is not the only venue for evidence. Law also uses evidence and lawyers love terms like "indisputable evidence". Belief is thought with emotion attached, so it is very difficult to change a person's mind with just thought. Evidence must be interpreted as to its relevance, so when we are talking evidence, we are talking thought. Emotion will always carry more weight than thought, because emotion is more valid and real. Gee

Pavelcherepan; I apologize for being so slow to answer your post, but that is what happens when you deal with old people. (chuckle) I seem to be getting slower. Thank you for your considered response, which I took some time to think about. Please review my following thoughts and let me know what you think. Well, this is true, but does "overcome" instincts mean cause instincts? I believe that evolution has the reptilian brain (don't remember the exact name they have for this) as coming first, which means that the instinctive brain/mind came first. Intelligence is a latter development in evolution, so intelligence could not have caused instincts or emotion. Now one can argue that intelligence can cause the extinction of instincts, but I am not sure that this is supportable with evidence. It is well studied that a domestic pig can be released into a forest, and it will revert to its ancestral self, then after a few generations is almost indistinguishable from a wild boar. So even if they are subdued, instincts seem to still be there. Intelligence does influence emotion and can influence the effects of our instincts. I will not argue this as it seems clear that thought influences emotion and emotion influences thought and both can be influenced by the physical body. Try the following two-part thought experiment: I want you to pull up a strong emotion, love, hate, or fear, into your mind. It should be a strong emotion because strong emotion causes physical symptoms of that emotion, like the full feeling of love, the tension of hate, or the queasy stomach of fear. Using strong emotion insures that it is true emotion, rather than imagining or pretending. When you can actually feel the emotion, then hold it for one minute on the clock. With a little work, most people can accomplish this. Now I want you to try the experiment again with only one change. This time you will not bring up any thoughts that helped you to remember the fear, hate, or love that you felt. You are to conjure up the emotion with a blank mind. So far, I have never met anyone who can accomplish this. So what does this tell us? It tells us that the rational conscious aspect of mind can not produce emotion because it does not know emotion. In the first part of the experiment, what you produced was thought that had emotion attached to it. These thoughts were from your past and were experiences that you remembered and also experiences that had emotional consequences. There is no "memory slot" for emotion, so we can not know emotion unless thought is attached. Since we know that chemistry affects emotion, what happens when we feel emotion, but there is no experience and no thought to associate the emotion with? Like when a person takes drugs, or when they have a chemical imbalance like schizophrenia. It is my personal opinion, that in this case the rational mind tries to interpret the experience and attach thought to the emotion, so what we end up with is delusion. But instincts work though feeling and emotion, so I am not sure we should try to separate these issues. You are correct in that it is a kind of reward and punishment thing, but I prefer to think of it as attraction and repulsion. Instincts, feelings, and emotion all work through chemistry/hormones, so I tend to think of this chemistry as little magnets that attract some things and repulse other things. (chuckle) We feel the attraction and repulsion and call it feelings and emotion, but it is all about chemistry. Instincts keep us alive -- that is their job. The basic survival instincts work through hormones, and all life has some kind of hormone. Although hormones have many more functions than just to cause instinctive behavior, it seems clear that hormones help us to relate to the physical world and stay alive in the world -- pheromones are an important part of this work. All of it works through attraction and repulsion, feeling and emotion. The following is from Wiki under the heading of Hormones: The underlined parts of the quote are my work and clearly exhibit the hormone effects that we call survival instincts. So survival instincts are dependent upon hormones, and work through emotion, as emotion is the "mechanism" that activates the instinctive behavior. If there is one thing that I have learned about instincts, it is that instincts require that life continue. Since instincts work through emotion, then it is clear that without the activity of emotion, we would all die. Well, all species have some kind of hormone, all species have survival instincts, and hormones and survival instincts are activated through emotion. So yes, I would assume that all species have emotion, but does that mean that they know emotion? No. As I noted above, we can not know emotion, we can experience it and only remember emotion because it is attached to our thoughts and memories. So in order to know that emotion exists, a specie would have to have a brain and a rational aspect of mind. I suspect that most mammals, many birds and some others do have the ability to know emotion as we do, because many of them can pass the Mirror Test. The others may experience the emotion, but would have no knowledge of having done so. I seriously doubt that an oak tree feels bad because it is infested by insects, but it will still send out pheromones to other oak trees to warn them to produce chemicals that will discourage the infestation. So the oak tree will react like it actually feels the infestation and emotion, but will have no ability to know that feeling/emotion. In my opinion. Gee I am tired again. Ten oz, please give me another day or so to answer your post.

Ten oz; Please consider my following thoughts. Your above statements very closely align with my original thoughts on this subject. I had already learned that emotion works through the sub/unconscious aspect of mind and reasoned that it is faster because it does not have to be processed in the rational conscious aspect of mind. Then I learned that unlike thought, emotion is shared and works outside of the body. Thoughts are within us, but emotion works between us. Emotion can create bonds between people. So then, still thinking that they were the same thing, I started to wonder if emotion was just fast moving thought that we feel, or if emotion actually carried thought/knowledge to make it faster. I debated this for years without ever coming up with any real resolution. Are thought and emotion the same thing with different speeds, or are they different? Then I realized that there are blends of thought and emotion. We can have thoughts that have no emotion attached like in math; we can have emotion that does not have any known thoughts attached like with instincts; but we can also have emotion and thoughts together like in belief or faith. And no, I am not talking about religion here; I am talking about the difference between the words 'belief' and 'faith' in normal life. The neurologist that I worked with explained belief as follows: The sun comes up in the morning, you get out of bed, and have your morning coffee. These things become familiar and comfortable, which means we attach emotion/feeling to these experiences. If the sun did not come up, if you tried to get out of bed and found that your body would not respond, or if you grabbed your coffee cup and your hand went through the cup instead of picking it up, you would be shocked, maybe horrified, because you have learned to expect the familiar and are comfortable with it. So belief is when we attach emotion/feeling to our knowledge and thoughts. Faith is entirely different, and almost the opposite. Faith is when a Mom is absolutely sure that her son could not possibly have murdered twenty-seven people because she knows his heart, and he is a good boy. So faith is when we attach knowledge and thoughts to our feelings and emotions. So if we can have knowledge/thought without feeling/emotion; and we can have feeling/emotion without knowledge/thought; and we can have emotion that we attach thought to; and we can have thought that we attach emotion to, then how could they possibly be the same thing? This is not even considering the other ways that thought and emotion are different. Fear and sexual attraction work through hormones. More on that below. I look forward to your considered response. Gee I hope everyone had a lovely holiday. Please wait another day for my responses to the other posters.

Skeptic134; Please consider my following thoughts. Sorry, but I am not feeling froggy enough to jump to conclusions and answer that question. Don't you think if would be better to figure out what emotion actually is, before trying to figure out where it came from? If this is what you think, you are in the wrong forum. Religion is the next forum down. Easy to find. First, consider that "produced by the brain" and "doubt the brain has anything to do with emotion" do not equate. (Italics is mine) Since the brain is literally swimming in chemicals and hormones, and since there is substantial evidence that hormones and emotions are intimately connected, I would have to be an idiot to say that emotions have nothing to do with the brain. I can make mistakes, and even say some dumb things, but generally speaking, I am not a damned fool. As to my response to "measured/mapped brain activity", I would say that there are other people, who are also trying to learn what emotion actually is. Pavelcherepan; Please consider my following thoughts. This is a very good response. There are many studies that link emotion to instincts, and this is how I first started to investigate this subject. I was in a different science forum working with a neurologist and an animal behaviorist, who are both professionals in their respective fields. I wanted to understand instincts better, but ended up with more confusion. According to Wiki, instincts are behaviors that we are born with. According to the neurologist, there are "learned instincts", which seems kind of ridiculous because the word "instincts" means that it is something that we do automatically without having to learn it. So what are learned instincts? The neurologist explained that "learned instincts" are actually learned muscle reflexes, like when a ball player automatically catches something thrown at him, or when we automatically hit the brakes in our cars when something appears in front of us. So the word "instincts" has come to mean any automatic response, or any reaction that comes from the sub/unconscious aspect of mind, which makes it a difficult concept to study. It is almost impossible to learn anything using that broad a term, so in this thread, I would like to limit the discussion of instincts to the basic survival instincts. This is something that we know more about and can study. As far as emotion being related to intelligence, I don't see it. I will agree that higher intelligence promotes a larger variety of emotions and more subtlety, but I do not see a causation between intelligence and the existence of emotion. Randomc; Please consider my following thoughts. What is "neuroskeptic's blog" and where would I find it? For this thread, I would like to concentrate on an analytic study of emotion and avoid the ideas of religion and free will, as the subject matter is already too broad. Gee I would like to thank each of you for responding and have some thoughts to share regarding the differences between thought and emotion. 1. Thought is known, but emotion is felt. We can not actually know emotion. 2. Thought is private, but emotion is shared. Thought is only shared if we choose to share our thoughts, but emotion can be seen through body language, facial expression, and even in the eyes, so it is only private if we intentionally hide it. Consider that another person may be able to 'read' our moods, feelings, or emotions by just looking at us, but they will never be able to 'read' the shopping list in our minds, or the maintenance schedule that we have planned for our vehicles. Thoughts are private. Gee

Most people that I talk to seem to think that emotion is unruly thought; or thought that is difficult to control. But is it? Emotion and thought have different abilities, different limitations, different functions, and don't work the same way at all. I suspect that emotion and thought are as much alike as blood and bones. Blood and bones are both part of our bodies, both made up of cells, both necessary, but definitely not interchangeable. It would be difficult to walk around using blood as our body structure and using bones to supply our organs. Another thing that people seem to think is that emotion is produced by the brain, just like thought. I seriously doubt this. So what is emotion? What are its limits, its abilities, its functions? Is it necessary to life? Is it interchangeable with thought? Does it influence thought or our bodies? Does thought or our bodies influence emotion? Help me put some parameters around the subject of emotion. I am posting this in the Philosophy forum because there is no Science forum that completely covers the subject, as it is relevant to neurology, psychology, biology, animal behavior, and more. What are your thoughts on this subject? Gee

Mr. Laymen; Welcome to the forums. Please consider my following thoughts. I have read many of your posts in the Philosophy forum, but wonder if you have learned very much about philosophy. If you like to learn and like science, you will have a great time in the Science forums above. I know very little about science, but occasionally, I will look through a specific subject, and although I can not always follow the discussion, I was amazed to find that many of the members will take the time to explain science. Just last week, I learned about dimensions, something that has always confused me. I have a much better understanding now and had to write a post in that thread to thank the helpful members. Not sure that I would describe them as functions, mostly because they function so differently. They use different methodologies because their subject matter is so different. Philosophy is not going to be able to take "knowledge" and set it on a lab table to be measured and weighed for accuracy, so it must use a different method to find knowledge. I generally refer to them as 'disciplines'. The reason for this is because without discipline, the methodologies do not work -- one can not be sloppy and still find facts and truth. Another difference is that science finds its facts as a result of testing and experimentation -- at the end -- but philosophy finds its truths by carefully considering its premises -- at the beginning. So they are very different, but both require strict discipline. More on this idea below. It is true that they make a great team when working together. Your above statement makes it clear that you do not understand the methodology of philosophy. The methodology of philosophy is argument. It is not the "he said -- she said" kind of argument, or the "I'm right and you are wrong" kind of argument, nor is it really debate, as debate is more about winning than it is about finding truth. A philosophical argument is a well reasoned, logically consistent set of statements that expose truth. To help you understand this concept, below are two examples, one from science and one from philosophy, that should show how a small seemingly innocent difference can corrupt the methodologies and thwart science or philosophy. Science: I watched a documentary, years ago, where a researcher was studying causes of cancer. She explained that she had been at this for years with some success, when all of a sudden almost all of her vials showed positive that they caused cancer. Knowing that this was very unlikely, she investigated and eventually discovered that the people who ordered her supplies had decided to use plastic vials rather than glass vials -- probably trying to save money. The end result of the documentary was a recommendation to not use plastic containers in the microwave to process our food. It may have been around this same time that Rubbermaid and Tupperware took a downward spiral, although many manufacturers of plastic food containers now state that their products are "microwave safe". For myself, I went out and bought a full set of glass serving bowls and got another set for my Mother. So sometimes a small or innocent change or reality can be overlooked and corrupt science. Discipline is always necessary and the consideration of all known possibilities is necessary. Philosophy: Probably the best known argument ever presented is Descartes Meditations -- also referred to as a treatise. I listened to Meditations on tape and thought I had never heard or read anything that compares to it. It was the most eloquent, well reasoned, well thought out, logically consistent argument that I had ever heard. If logic could be called poetry, then Descartes would be THE poet. It is just too damned bad that he was wrong. Philosophy has been using the logical argument for centuries, and a great deal of our knowledge and truth came from this source, so how did Descartes mess up so badly? It is my opinion that he based one assumption on an incorrect interpretation. He assumed that the interpretation of "God" from religion was correct which, like the plastic vials above, corrupted his argument. In his time, study of the rational aspect of mind was just getting good, and no one really understood the sub/unconscious aspect of mind for many more centuries until Freud, Jung, and others started serious work on the sub/unconscious. So he could not know that "God" can not be known; "God" can only be interpreted because emotion can not be known -- only interpreted. Philosophy can not test knowledge to see if it is valid at the conclusion of it's argument -- like science can test after it's experiments. So philosophy must use the beginning to validate it's truths and must ensure that it's premises are not based in assumption, interpretation, bias, imaginings, pretense, prejudice, etc. So we check our premises, make our argument, then wait for another philosopher to point out any mistakes. So asking a philosopher to dismiss or dissolve the argument is very much like asking a scientist to remove all of that silly lab stuff that is cluttering the place up. So, no, it is not fair. In my opinion. Gee

Imatfaal; I don't know why I am trying so hard to explain this, as we have never been able to have a productive discussion; nonetheless, I will try again. Yes. That is what I wrote, philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true. But you did not understand what I wrote, so let's try a different tact. What defines a tree as a tree? It is not the leaves because pine trees do not have leaves and other plants do have leaves. It can not be the height because I have seen bushes that can grow taller than some trees. It can not be the trunk because other plants have the same shape of a "trunk" that branches out. And it can not be the bark because a Giant Cardon is a tree, but is also a cactus without bark. A Saguaro is described as "tree-like" . . . . but not a tree? When I was in Ireland, I saw something that was called a "Monkey Tree" (probably not the formal name). It was very old, the trunk being 2 to 3 feet in diameter, and it was 30 to 40 feet tall. From a distance, it could be interpreted as some kind of Elm tree, but upon closer inspection, I found that it did not have leaves, nor did it have needles. What it had at the ends of it's branches was something that looked like cactus, but without the pointy things, it was smooth. Actually, the leaves (?) looked a great deal like the growths that grow out of Chicks and Hens cactus when they flower. But it was a tree. So what is the essence, the root definition, that makes one plant a tree and another not a tree? That is what I searched for, the root definition that defined philosophy. Remember that I am a holistic thinker, so I define things in relation to other things. There are three core disciplines, Philosophy, Science, and Religion. Religion is the study of emotion. Yes, I know that many people will disagree with this, but then few people actually study emotion, so many are clueless. Science became a discipline in it's own right with the development of the scientific method. Science examines, experiments, and tests, to learn something's strengths and weaknesses, how it works, why it works, what it can and cannot do, etc. Science bases its findings on consistency and predictability, so it works mostly with "knowns". One can not find an "unknown" to be predictable or consistent. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true. Knowledge. Many people state that philosophy is the study of wisdom, but since wisdom is merely an advanced form of truth, this also fits within the above definition. Have you ever wondered why the branches of Philosophy that you mentioned are all listed under the umbrella of Philosophy? Not science or religion? If you keep making statements like this, I am going to have to retract my statement about you not being illogical. This is like saying, "A study of math is not a prerequisite for the use of math." Gee

Imatfaal; Please consider my following thoughts. Your above quoted statements surprised me, as I could not understand how you could take the intention that I had when making my statements, and interpret it exactly backward. Not a little off, but exactly backward. How could stating that philosophy is the source of all true knowledge be "selling Philosophy short"? This is illogical. Where did I claim that philosophy was ONLY Epistemological? I didn't. That was your interpretation of my words and your assumption. I do not honestly believe that you are illogical, nor do I believe that you intentionally distorted my meaning, so what happened? In order to solve this puzzle, I centered on the word "reductionism" and went to Wiki to study it. Reductionism has always seemed nonsensical to me, but I did not really understand it. I have a better understanding now, and still see it as nonsensical. Reductionism seems to take the whole of a thing and try to reduce it, or it's essence, to a small simple part. Like you thought that I was trying to reduce philosophy to simply a study of knowledge. Nonsense. Another thing that I learned about reductionism is that it's opposite is holism. At that point, things started to make more sense to me because I am a holistic thinker, so it is not surprising that I find reductionism nonsensical. This is turning out to be good subject matter for this thread. When discussing something with another person, and their response seems to be illogical, does that mean that they are not logical, or could there be another reason? It is possible that they do not have enough information to come to a logical conclusion, but it is just as possible that they are putting the information together in a different way, or from a different perspective. In this case, a person would have to listen carefully and probably ask questions in order to gain understanding of the other person's meaning and logic. A few years ago, in a different science forum, a knowledgeable person told me that I was a holistic thinker. I had no idea what that meant, so I looked it up and discovered that someone had studied how my mind works and written it down. It was very enlightening and explained the flaws and values in my type of thinking. After that, I found a few different sites that catagorized up to ten different types of thinking. So there are lots of different ways that we interpret information, and in their own way, each can be logical. Generally speaking, a holistic thinker, or systems thinker, sees things from a whole perspective and understands things in relation to other things. One could even say that a holistic thinker understands the relationship between things better than they understand the things in themselves. Holistic thinkers are historically associated with philosophy and religion because they understand cycles and tend to understand the motion of a cycle. But this does not preclude them from being scientists. The more I learn about Einstein, a great scientist, the more I am convinced that he was a holistic thinker. He saw the wholeness of the Universe and understood the relationship between time and space, then he proved what he saw with math. This is typical of holistic thinking, but the rest of us see much smaller things with our much smaller minds. (chuckle) In order to find the "wholeness" of anything, one needs to trace it to it's roots, it's source, so when I stated that philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it, I was talking about the root of knowledge. Philosophy is the parent of all studies. I don't see how this is "selling Philosophy short". When I am working on a problem, I will often trace the assumed knowledge back until I can find the place where the knowledge was assumed, or maybe corrupted, then I bring that forward and check it in relation to other things to ensure that it remains true. I know of no limits of subject matter for this process. There is no limit of subject matter for philosophy. So I think that what happened, is that you do not think like I do, so you misinterpreted my meaning. All branches of philosophy, all branches of science, all branches of religion relate back to the study of knowledge, because without knowledge none of these studies could exist. If you disagree, then please tell me which of the branches in science or philosophy could exist without knowledge. It would be fun reading. Gee

Greg H; Please consider my following thoughts. I agree with you. Critical thinking is not highly valued in the education system, but I think there are reasons for this. If you analyze the public school system, I think you will find that the motivation for government is to produce children, who can read and write and have basic knowledge, for the cheapest possible price. This leads to overcrowding and assembly-line teaching. Then because we don't trust our teachers to be teaching, we test the children to ensure that they are receiving a proper education. Children, who think, ask questions -- lots of questions. So a teacher, who must pass out information in order to validate themselves and the school, has no time to answer questions from 25 to 30 children. So although it would be nice to teach critical thinking skills, I am not sure that it is even feasible before the high school level in our present system. These skills are usually taught in the home. Most people do not ask a child to think and do not want to know what a child thinks. Luckily, you and I both had parents, who cared enough to want to know. Phi for All; Please consider my following thoughts. It is my considered opinion that emotion is more real than thought, but a person has to know which they are using and how to use them. If people were just rational, like a computer, then they would spit out bad information just the same as a computer will when fed incorrect data. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it. So what does that mean? Is all information knowledge? Is pretending knowledge? Is imagination knowledge? Are lies knowledge? No. Knowledge is not just information, it is information that is real and true. So when we study what we can know, we are studying knowledge, so we are studying what is real and true. Is this logical enough? I do not know enough about science to argue the point with you, but I will state that if "proofs" are not relevant to science, then they should stop flinging that word about so much, as in the following quote: Well, I am listening now. Do you have something that you would like to explain? Gee

Marshalscienceguy; Please consider: "So what is this creature?" That is a question that was asked at the end of the 1700's. Science had proof that it did not exist, knew that it was a hoax, and one scientist even tried to separate the parts in order to prove the hoax. But flying in the face of all known proof and evidence, the platypus does in fact exist. It is a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal that resembles a beaver, has webbed feet and a bill reminiscent of a duck, and is also venomous -- so do we throw snake in also? (chuckle) Or are there other venomous mammals? I have no idea. Your OP is a very good example of what happens when "science guys" play in a philosophy forum. Science deals with "knowns" and proofs and right/wrong -- philosophy does not. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we know it -- or what is real and true. This means that philosophy studies the "unknowns" to see what can be learned and known about them. Consider that philosophy is an exploratory study. So imagine two explorers sitting in the jungle arguing about which path is right or wrong to the point where they just quit and do no exploring. They would accomplish nothing and end their exploration in complete frustration. It would be better to choose a path, even if it proves to be the wrong path, because walking that path will teach them something about that jungle. Philosophy is about setting parameters around an unknown to make it more known, so anything learned has value. Philosophy forums are where we go to share the small bits of information that we acquire, so that maybe, together, we can get a better understanding. So in your above example, arguing about right and wrong is useless. It would be better to follow Socratic Questioning and ask, "Why do you think it is a dog?" When you get an answer to that question, then you can ask, "Do you have any evidence to support your idea?" If they have evidence, and can make a reasoned logical argument that supports their position, then it is philosophy and a discussion can ensue. If they have no evidence or they can not make a reasoned logical argument that connects the evidence, then it is pure speculation, imagination, and probably nonsense. Simple. Unknowns can not be proven, because they are UNKNOWN. Unknowns can not be right or wrong, because they are UNKNOWN. When something becomes known, then it can be handed to science for testing and proofs. On a personal note, I resent the hell out of it when people compare philosophy and speculations as if there is no difference. Speculations is NOT philosophy. Gee

1x0; It is a good thing that you provided that link to your other thread, as I now have a better idea of your thoughts. I also know that you have ticked off the management here, even more than I have, as they have never closed one of my threads. What I think is that you are intelligent and have a good mind as you are asking questions that we all have asked at one time or another, but you also appear to lack patience, as you seem to think that the answers to your questions are forthcoming. They are not. Most of those answers will not appear in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. So if you can discipline yourself to dealing with knowns, or at least well reasoned and logical arguments based upon knowns, then we can have an interesting discussion. I am fairly certain that I have some information that can help you in your considerations, and you may well have information that can help me, but I will not accept assumptions, beliefs, or what you think based on your thoughts. Philosophy is a discipline; beliefs belong in the religion forum, imagination needs to go to Hollywood. Please explain why we need to "set up" a symmetry. Is it possible that symmetry is the beginning and the end? We can assume nothing as we are dealing with unknowns here. Agreed. Because symmetry is very basic as there is no differentiation, the information that it carried would also be very basic and reflect that symmetry. This is another reason why I see "=" as that basic information. Well, I am not sure I can agree with this. I thought that the "physically observable", or matter, was caused by photons in motion. Since this is a science forum, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. If motion is the cause and photons still exist, I am not sure that this could be called an evolutionary change. Symmetry may still exist, and if the motion ever stops, then the symmetry of the photons will be all that is left. (chuckle) This subject gives me a headache. Your assumption here does not make sense. You state that the "origin is nothing" and then state that it "evolves from somewhere/something". Well, "somewhere/something" is matter -- not nothing. You can not have it both ways. Well, just because you can not think of it, has nothing to do with whether or not it exists. Isn't it YodaP, who has that statement in his signature, that states that the Universe has no obligation to not be absurd? I don't know about "lower" or "higher" values, but the unconscious aspect of mind has no knowledge of time and space, does not work with logic as we know it, but still manages to support cause and effect in it's own way -- with no regard for time and space. I disagree. 1 x 0 = 0; 1,000 x 0 = 0; 1,000,000 x 0 = 0. It does not change. There is no "exponential expansion" of nothing. You can not corrupt math and expect to be taken seriously -- especially in a science forum. Science loves math because math gives them facts and truth. Consider that it does not matter what symbols you use in your math for numbers. The root things that matter in math are one to one association, equal, more and less, and same and different. These happen to be the exact same principals that the unconscious mind works with, and the unconscious mind does not know time and space. So I see no reason to believe that these same principles wouldn 't apply whether we are talking matter or nonmatter, after the Big Bang or prior to the Big Bang. imo In the case of the Big Bang, no amount of matter was required, because as far as we know no matter existed. The Big Bang is the origin of this system, it is not necessarily the origin of reality. Are you asking where reality came from? Have you ever considered what basic intelligence must have been at the beginning? The only thing that exists in proportion to nothing is nothing. "Will of existence" has nothing to do with thought. It applies to knowledge and want. Want is attraction or repulsion, so it is motion and is also known to us as e-motion. The attraction and repulsion of motion causes all things to move, and maybe to exist, from the motion of electrons around a nucleus to the motion of galaxies. I suspect that the panpsychism explanation that everything knows what it is contributes to the intelligence of reality. But everything is not aware -- only life is aware. In my opinion -- until someone corrects me, or I learn more, or something changes. Gee

Strange; Which are no doubt more sophisticated, but nonetheless not true. I like Flash Gordon, who was always finding planets populated by incredibly beautiful women, where the women felt the need to feed him and then enslave him. (heh heh heh) I'll take fun over sophistication any day. Actually, the Matrix was hard on philosophy forums; solipsism made a strong comeback. Well, I will not argue science with you, as that would be foolish. But as a philosopher, I would have my doubts about anything learned. There are just too many assumptions. I rely heavily on science to give me hard facts and evidence for my considerations, but recently have found that science is giving me theories based on theories, rather than hard facts. I liked it better when science did science, not speculation or quasi-philosophy. Some of the things that people tell me in forums like this are actually wrong, so I wish that science would be science and let philosophy be philosophy. Gee 1x0; Your post was not addressed to me, but I would like to respond anyway, if you don't mind. First I would like to apologize for misspelling your name in my last post to you. Bad eyes. Symmetry means; "the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis." So symmetry means all the same, much like that blank sheet of paper that I noted earlier. Why does it have to come from anywhere? Why can't it be the origin? Whether or not it is the origin, your idea that things must start from zero is an assumption. There is absolutely no evidence that anything starts from nothing, so you can not assume that everything starts from nothing. As to the force, we don't know the properties of reality before the big bang, so how could we know what force was required? It takes a great deal of force to push a large rock up a hill, but a chain reaction can be started with very little force, like an avalanche. But are you following an "evolutionary way of assumptions"? It doesn't look like it. You are stating that the physical can evolve, matter and planets, and that life can evolve, but you are also saying that intelligence does not evolve, that it was always here. I know that I am more intelligent than a dog, and I am pretty sure that a dog is more intelligent than a goldfish, so why do we assume that intelligence does not also evolve? Consider the following, which is the way most people think -- whether they admit it or not: Intelligent Designer (God) created the heavens and the Earth. (religion) Intelligent Designer (God) created life. (religion) Life evolved. (science) Eventually man arrived with a brain and consciousness. (science) Man recognized God (religion) or imagined God (science). And God created the heavens and the Earth. (religion) The above is not a cycle, it is circular thinking. A cycle continues and works through cause and effect, the above does not. Even if we assume that the metaphysical exists beyond the actual physical reality, that does not mean that it does not also evolve. Nor does it have any bearing on whether or not the metaphysical and the physical are interdependent. They may well be. Or they may not be. I used to accept the idea that intelligence/information existed prior to our universe and physical reality, but have recently questioned whether or not that "intelligence" was as intelligent at the time of the big bang as it is now. We know that intelligence evolves within life, so I see no reason to assume that it does not evolve within reality. We also know that billions of years have passed since that time, so it is possible that the metaphysical can also evolve and that it was something very simple in the beginning. What do you mean "again"? There is no evidence that "nothing" ever existed. If you "assume" something, what you have is an assumption -- a guess. This is not knowledge. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it, or what is real and true. It is not the study of assumptions. If you throw out the "nothing" idea and consider the possibility that the mental can also evolve, I think that you will come to some very different conclusions. Gee

Tar; Please consider: Which is the basis for every war and argument, and is what we are doing right now, thinking that the other person is wrong, but I am right. Are you telling the truth? I think that I am telling the truth. If we disagree, does that mean that we are both liars? Or one of us is a liar? This is Simple Truth and it is a subjective truth based on a person's thoughts, experiences, observations, and feelings, which come together to form an opinion. As long as we are being honest about our opinions, then we are telling the truth. Whether that truth ends up being right or wrong is irrelevant, as it is still the truth that we are honestly conveying. Truth is relative to perspective. There are also objective truths; such as, truisms, universals, and facts. These truths require more than one perspective, so they are more reliable -- but they are not necessarily more true. Whether it is objective or subjective, truth is simply an accurate reflection of something. Objective truths have more perspectives, so are often more accurate. If you try to make truth "fit" or "make sense" you can corrupt it, because truth does not always fit or make sense. I cut out your "Examples" as they were both about objects, and objects do not know truth. Everything that we know comes from perception. I remember reading a story about a lab that was messing up DNA testing, and the evidence from that lab sent some people to prison, who were innocent. There was a big stink about it because some of the people sent to prison were in Texas, and Texas still had, or has, a death penalty. The perception of a witness and the perception of a lab tech are exactly the same, the only real difference is the procedures that the lab tech uses that should protect the facts, truth, if the lab tech follows the rules. Apparently someone didn't follow the rules/procedures. If "truth by perception, feelings etc" is not valid, then the next time I am driving down the California coast while they are having earthquake warnings, I will be sure to be in the car alone. If my car is swallowed by an earthquake, but there is no one else in the car to confirm it, then it will not be the truth, so I will survive. Excellent. Gee

Strange; I laughed out loud when I read this -- out of surprise. It never occurred to me that you would be talking about "sci-fi" myths, but I suppose that is something that science forums would have to deal with. I bet the Matrix made people in these forums crazy. And can Scotty beam me up? (chuckle) OK. You are talking about measuring the empty space between things like suns and planets and galaxies. This makes sense. I thought you were saying that an entire universe would be empty, and considered that I don't even know if an empty universe could exist, much less how it would act. I should have known better. YodaP; I know your above quote was not addressed to me, but it was still helpful to me. Thank you. Gee

MattMVS7; Well, I am not convinced. Has it occurred to you that in order to buy into the ideas as set forth in the OP, a person would have to be narcissistic? Gee

Strange; Hi. Please consider my following thoughts and let me know if you think I've lost my mind yet. (chuckle) These ideas can give a person a headache. Agreed, except the myth appeared before we could track the universe, so I am not sure that is the cause. On the other hand, tracking reality down to the smallest particle, photon, or whatever, and then implying that this line of thought leads to "nothing" reinforces and supports the idea that the reverse is also possible -- nothing leads to something; the god concepts. This idea does not serve science or philosophy well. Since the idea of "nothing" is not a part of actual reality, I have thrown out "0', or nothing, as the starting point, because I see no truth in it. If we use "=" as the starting point, then things work out differently. If we posit that the start of everything was equal, then we have a concept where all is the same, there is no differentiation in anything, so there is nothing to measure. So there are no dimensions? Size becomes irrelevant? Motion causes the parts that were equal to take on different qualities causing the Big Bang and the universe as we now know it. So the universe will continue to exist as long as there is motion. Maybe? Well, I am not so sure about an empty universe expanding, and wonder if the persons producing this model were cherry picking their assumptions. How could anyone tell if an empty universe was expanding if there was no point to expand from? And if there was a point of origin, then the universe was not empty. I have this same problem studying consciousness. A lot of people suspect that consciousness (God) existed prior to the universe. But consciousness (awareness) requires focus, it requires something to be aware of, and somewhere for the focus to originate from, so it requires at least two points. It requires matter. So I don't see how awareness can exist prior to matter, which is one of my problems with the "God" concept. The same goes for intent, as it requires two points. In my opinion Gee

Tx0; Please consider my following thoughts. The problem is that I don't see how "nothing" can actually exist. There can be a concept of nothing, but it is an abstract concept that has no base in reality. There was a time when we thought that a cup, without coffee in it, was empty -- there was nothing in it -- but we now know that there is at least air in it. There was a time when we thought that space was mostly empty with nothing in it, but we are learning that this idea was also wrong. So when we say that there is "nothing" there, what we are really saying is that the things we expect to be "there" are missing or lacking. It does not imply that nothing is a state of reality. Well I don't know much about physics, but the "physical zero" was introduced to us and math sometime in the Middle Ages. I remember reading about the Crusaders, who came back from the Middle East with the idea of "zero". There was a huge debate about the ungodliness of "zero" in Europe, as God created everything -- not nothing. I am not sure if the Europeans were more upset about the ungodliness of zero, or if they were just ticked off to find that the "heathens" were actually smarter than they were, but it was fun reading. The zero was eventually accepted, and math changed forever advancing at incredible speed. I doubt that even the concept of "zero" came from nothing, and think that it came from the abacus. According to my encyclopedia set, the abacus was invented by the Romans, as they would use stones in the sand as place holders to do their math, but I doubt this. The Romans were well noted for adopting and adapting other peoples' ideas, as they were great managers. In the Far East, the abacus is still used today to teach math to children, and it started as beads set on a reed to hold a number while counting. I suspect this is the origin of the abacus. If you consider that zero is just a placeholder, and consider that a written zero looks very much like a bead (or a stone), it becomes a feasible idea that zero originated in the East, and originated as something. I am not sure why you think that zero is a "common reference point" in philosophy, but would appreciate a reference so that I can study it. For myself, I do not consider zero as a starting point in philosophy as that would deny the negative. I think of = as a starting point and an ending point. Consider this thought experiment: Take a plain white sheet of paper (nothing on it) and draw a circle on the paper. Now consider that although you have drawn only one thing, the circle, you have created three things, the circle, the inside and the outside. If there was nothing on the paper, then where did the inside and outside come from? You might think that "inside" and "outside" are just abstract concepts like "nothing", but this is not true. Even a dog understands the concepts of inside and outside, especially if it is raining, but a dog can not understand an abstract idea like nothing as having any reality. Inside and outside are parts of each other, are innate understandings, and relate to each other as a whole; nothing relates to nothing but itself, as it is not part of any whole, which is because nothing does not have any reality. The more I learn, the more convinced I become that reality is holistic in it's nature. From life and ecosystems to forces and photons, everything seems to work in patterns and cycles, and I suspect that it all relates to the whole. Holistically speaking, a beginning is just a sign that an end has come, and an ending is the prelude to a beginning. Everything cycles, so we are living in a linear universe that is dependent upon a holistic reality. Life is interesting. In my opinion Gee My apologies for misunderstanding your reasoning. Gee

Strange and StringJunky; Never having studied science or especially physics, I always found the idea of "dimensions" intimidating. There are just too many movies and TV shows that attach a "woo woo" factor to the word dimensions, so I thought that I could not understand it and didn't even try. But after reading this thread, I find that it is very simple. Just as I would measure my living room from East to West, then from North to South to find it's "dimensions" to buy a new carpet, science measures time and space to learn it's dimensions. Finding a spot on a line requires only one measure, so a line is one dimensional; measuring for carpet requires two measures, so a flat surface is two dimensional; measuring my desk requires three measures, height, width, and depth, so an object is three dimensional. Since the Earth is an object, meeting someone at a specific time and place would mean that I need another measure, time, in order to accomplish this, so time is the fourth dimension. I feel like an idiot not already knowing this; nonetheless, I thank you for making it so clear. Time started at the Big Bang because we have no way to measure prior to the Big Bang. Now there is quantum physics that can measure up to ten dimensions, but these measures are derived from math, so I will never understand them. But at least now I know what they are talking about -- it is just more ways to measure. Thanks, Gee

Phi for All; Please consider my following thoughts. It is not always necessary to go "through" something to learn what is on the other side. If you will read my statement carefully, you will note the words "before" and "prior", as I was not referring to the event, but to the nature of reality before the event. I have no doubt that everything, regarding science, that you state in the above quote is true, but what I stated was "Philosophy is the study of". I did not state anything about science being the study of knowledge, because it would not be true. Science studies facts; philosophy studies what we can know and how we know it. Slight difference, but relevant. So when philosophy finally comes up with an "explanation", science can have a good time testing, proving, or falsifying it. But this is a difficult problem, so give us a few weeks. (Yes. That was a joke.) The concept of god(s) is so fraught with ignorance that it is mind boggling to me. I have rarely found a person, who is informed and intelligent enough to even discuss this subject, and that goes for believers and nonbelievers alike. They don't even know what they are talking about. So if you want to discuss the existence of god(s), I would suggest doing it in another thread, as it will take this thread off topic. I want to take some time to study voids, chaos, and the link that was provided before responding to hoola. I expect that our discussion is over as you do not seem interested in the current topic. Gee

StringJunky; Don't worry. I am not going to go around telling everybody about a new theory because StringJunky said so. (chuckle) I change my mind a lot too -- that is what learning is all about. Thank you for the link. I am not sure how much I will understand, but I will try. No. No. Philosophy came first. Gee Hoola; Your following quoted statements read like assertion. Is it a definition of "void" or "chaos"? Or maybe it is someone's theory, or your theory? I am probably showing my ignorance, but any kind of reference would be appreciated. I have a problem with "Later developed a "freeze out" region of logic" and "With that logic a quasi-bit developed". My problem is that logic is linear and this logic seems to have developed prior to matter, so how could a linear "logic" exist prior to time and space? Gee

Phi for All; Please consider: Although I agree that guessing and pretending are not viable solutions, I do not agree that we "can't possibly know". Throughout human history there have been many things that we could not possibly know, until we learned them -- this is just another thing to learn. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it, or what is true and real. We can not go back to before the BB and witness the event, but if it is indeed true that time and space did not exist prior to that event, we do have some clues as to the idea of non-space and non-time. StringJunky; Your post is fascinating. I know almost nothing about science and had never heard that science considered the possibility that individual atoms could behave as one. Please consider my thoughts below and let me know if I am misunderstanding you. This would indicate that cause and effect, as we know it, would also be unknown prior to that event. I suspect that this is the "chaos" that the Ancients referred to that was supposed to be outside of our reality and understanding. This also aligns with the thinking in philosophy, regarding the snake that eats it's own tail, and in religion, regarding the 'God' that has no beginning and no end. It is my thought that the 'God' idea is interpreted and anthropomorphised, but it is the same understanding of timelessness. When three different disciplines with three different perspectives start to reach the same understanding, it is an indication to me that we are on a viable path. This reminded me of Carl Jung's ideas about "oneness". Although I have not been able to study his work, I know that Jung studied psychology and the sub/unconscious aspect of mind. It is my understanding that his ideas of "oneness" relate to the unconscious. For a long time the sub/unconscious aspect of mind was considered unknowable. It was made up of dreams and symbolism and made no sense. But Dr. Blanco, who studied with Anna Freud, defined levels in the unconscious, I think it was five levels, and also found a sort of logic in the unconscious aspect of mind. One simply has to remove time and space, cause and effect, in order to find the logic of the unconscious. In the unconscious mind, if Mary is Jane's mother, then Jane is Mary's mother. It does not recognize time or cause and effect, and only recognizes relationships, which it understands as equal. This seems to be rather bizarre thinking, but if you consider that time is irrelevant to the unconscious, it begins to make sense. The unconscious aspect of mind understands things in relationships; such as, "wholeness", or "oneness", as same or different, and as self or other. It is my thought that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind does not recognize time because it does not deal with time, or that it is not within time. So if anyone wanted to study the "nature" of the pre-BB universe, I would suggest starting with the study of the logic of the unconscious mind, as it is the only thing that I know of that has any understanding that is not dependent upon time and space. Gee

CirclesAndDots; You have started an interesting and challenging thread. Although I have considered different aspects of art, entertainment, and play, I never thought to compare them or discover what was distinctive about them, so I am having fun in this thread because I have to think. The following is just my thinking out loud to organize my ideas. Of course, if you see any corrections that may be needed or additional thoughts that I have missed, your input will be appreciated. Art is the interpretation and expression of feelings, moods, and emotion. Many people do not realize it, but emotion is not known, it is felt. In order to know emotion it needs to be interpreted and given substance and form that can be touched, seen, or heard, so that it can be known in the rational aspect of mind. Artists accomplish this through many different mediums; such as, music and dance, poetry and stories, drawings and paintings, and sculpture and architecture. Art can express the moods, feelings, and emotions of individuals or of cultures and societies. Entertainment takes art and adds thought to it. Entertainment reflects our feelings and thoughts back to us and helps us to understand ourselves. Whether it is the kids working a puppet show, the Uncles pulling out guitars and harmonicas at a family reunion, or going to a movie, entertainment is primarily a social activity. But it can also be used to influence and guide thoughts and emotions. Leaders have long used entertainment to bond societies and to guide them; some examples would be parades and holidays, knightly jousts, the Roman Coliseum, or amphitheaters. Entertainment also reflects the mood of the culture/society. I am not much of a history buff, but I think that Vaudville became popular right after the American Civil War. We had just destroyed our nation and people, so the crude, raunchy, slap-stick comedy fit the needs of a people who had lost their delicate sensibilities and wanted to forget and laugh at themselves. By the time the World Wars came around, we were very involved with cowboy and war movies; movies that clearly delineated the good guys from the bad guys. But the Vietnam war ushered in a time of doubt, so movies reflected a blurred and unsure representation of good versus bad. Right now the supernatural is all over the movies and television, and I suspect this is a reaction to the decline in religion, religion having always been the one that guided us regarding the supernatural. So entertainment guides, bonds, and reflects the psyche of a society/culture. Games are formalized play and are formatted with rules and parameters that give structure to the play. So I think the important question here is, What is play? Play is innate, can be observed in many species, and it is how we learn. One of the first games we learn is Peek-a-Boo. By nine months old, we have discovered the limits of our bodies and realize that we are not connected to anything, or anyone. If Mom leaves, she could be gone -- forever! So we panic, and she plays Peek-a-Boo with us so that we can study time and space, continuity, trust, and patience. Another popular game for babies is when they sit in their highchair and drop a piece of food over the side. They will watch it fall, clap their hands and grin at their amazing trick, because they made it fly. This is a study of gravity and does not usually last very long, but then we discover things that seem to defy gravity like balloons, bubbles, and kites, and are amazed all over again. Games hold our interest as long as we are getting something out of them, so we outgrow many games. As we grow we play Hopscotch and Catch to develop gross motor skills, Jacks and Building Blocks to develop fine motor skills, Simon Says and counting games which are precursors to reading and math, and Tag and Hide-and-Seek as social games. As we become more sophisticated, so do our games. So as adults our physical games become sports, our mental games become chess or power brokers trying to take over the world like Pinky and the Brain, our social bonding games become mating rituals or social groupings like shopping with the girls, watching football with the guys, or house parties. No matter what the game, it seems to always satisfy an individual need/want, or we quit playing. One could argue that team sports are not individual, but the team works as an individual unit, and is made up of individuals, so I think this still applies. Although it could be argued that art, entertainment, and games are all interactive in some ways, I agree that games are different. I see the difference in their purpose. Art and entertainment are all about giving us something, but games exist in order for us to take something. Like the earlier example with the money changing hands, it can be two entirely different things depending on whether it is given or taken. We either extract something from the game, or we don't play it. Is this what you meant by "resists"? I agree. If my thoughts above are even close to correct, then it appears that videogames are actually personalized entertainment masquerading as games. The problems that I see are that entertainment is social, but video games isolate; entertainment can lead and guide, but where are we being led or guided; games address a subjective need/want, but so far no one can tell me what that need or want is in relation to video games. I know that teachers use games to teach because we are many times more susceptible to learning while we are playing. I also have been told by young men, who have recently left the service, that the military uses video games to teach people to react and shoot before they can think. I find this rather disturbing, so again I ask, just what is it that we are teaching our children when we buy them video games? Gee

Swansont; If we equate the word 'addictive' with the word 'fun', then what we are saying is that the 'lot of fun' is involuntary, as it is generally acknowledged that addiction takes away our choices. This is why we have Alcoholics Anonymous and Gamblers Anonymous, organizations that deal with addiction and help us to regain our choices. We agreed that games are voluntary. If we equate the word 'fun' and the word 'game', then we reduce any serious game to a non-game status, and at the same time, make anything that is fun a game. So The Great Game would not actually be a game, but Jack The Ripper's activities might be a game, as he seemed to want to repeat the experience and may have been having fun. If I remember correctly, racing down the main highway through town at 90 miles per hour was quite exhilarating and fun, but would anyone call it a game? It has been a while since I tried that, but if I remember correctly, the police did not think of it as a game. So I don't think that these words bring us closer to a definition of 'game'. The idea of cost is very reasonable, but there are costs that do not have monetary value. It is interesting to note that you compared video games to movies -- entertainment. I have never disputed the idea that video games are entertaining, only that they may not qualify as games. In my opinion. I think that we are finally getting close to the original posters thoughts regarding the distinctions between art, entertainment, and games. So in my next post, I will try to state a position, or explain my thoughts, as to the qualities of each and what distinguishes one from the other. Gee

Swansont; It is difficult to describe the difference that I am seeing, but I suspect that it is in the word 'play'. Play seems to be missing from many video games. People tend to think that play is childish, that it is something frivolous that we do when we have nothing else to do, but this is not so. Play is how we learn and hone our skills and solve our problems. It is also a natural form of study. Children play more because they have a lot more to learn, but when we stop playing, we stop curiosity, imagination, creativity, and learning. Games are formalized play. Chess is a game of strategy, and yes there are tournaments and rankings, but there is more. It is a mental game that helps to expand thinking and learn strategy and is also a social game. It can help us to learn the mind of our opponent, to bond with an opponent, to evaluate another person's abilities, or to simply enjoy the social atmosphere of play. Winning is part of the game, but not the only part. Games of chance are actually studies of odds and luck. Most people quickly realize that luck is inconsistent and odds are hard to beat, so they don't get very involved in the play. But other people think that they can beat the odds, or they stand next to their lucky friend, wear their lucky shirt or shoes, or try to 'will' their horse to win or 'will' the right numbers to come up on the dice. These people can be quite superstitious and this play could be called a study of the supernatural. For these players winning is paramount, and addiction is often the result. Poker is often confused with games of chance, but it is not really about chance as much as it is a study of the ability to read other people, and is very important to men. Men need to be able to 'size up' other men and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. My grandson told me about a video game where he had to find the treasure, get the girl, and dispose of the bad guys. So what subjective need did this game fulfill? What did he learn? He did not learn how to find treasure in the real world. He did not learn how to get a girl. One could argue that he did learn how to dispose of bad guys -- all he needs is a gun. And he definitely learned how to win the game. So was his 'play' about winning, following direction/training, and solving problems by disposing of the people who created the problems? If I go to my homepage and look up games, I will be able to easily find one or two that claim to be so enjoyable that they are positively "addictive". Now why would I want something addictive? I know that there are people working on the problems that video games present, but I am not sure how successfully they can improve them. Video games seem to be a cross between entertainment and work, where you have to pay someone else so that you can do the work. The 'play' seems to be mostly missing from the games as the imagination and creativity is all from the designers. There is not much to learn that is valuable in the real world, but there is an element of curiosity for the player. Winning is paramount, and the addictive nature of the games is ADVERTISED. The difference between being trained by a 'game' and playing a game is mostly subjective, but I think that it is important. Consider that if I have a $100 bill in my hand and it transfers to your hand, what is that? If I gave it to you, it is a gift; if you took it from me, it is theft. One is a kindness, the other is a crime, the only difference is subjective intent, so subjective intent is important and is the real difference between training and playing, teaching and learning. In my opinion Gee

Swansont; In a philosophical discussion, it is generally more productive if the parties can state their positions and confirm any areas where they are in agreement, or disagreement. Doing this gives structure to the discussion; whereas, not doing this tends to let the discussion break down into talking at cross purposes, which I think we are on the brink of. So, at this point, I think that in order to be called a game, an activity needs to be voluntary and address a subjective need/want. Do you agree? If not, then why do you disagree? Once we have this worked out, I will be able to address your post above. Gee Eise; I have been spelling your name wrong throughout this thread, and sincerely apologize. I recently had cataract surgery and can actually see, but my lenses were set for long distance. Until I get my new computer glasses, I make use of drugstore reading glasses and had them on when I realized my mistake. Misspelling someone's name is a serious breach of etiquette, and I assure you that it was not done intentionally. Again, my apologies. Gee