Is there evidence of " Cleverness " in Nature and it's processes ?

[Unity+]

Sounds fair enough.

 

 

I was trying to be clever.

My inability to interpret such makes me embarrassed to say the least.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Acme,

 

I am glad that things have cooled down in the thread, but in future it would be appreciated if you could tone down the personal remarks in your comments. As well, there are some in this thread whose first language is not English, so please try to exercise a bit more patience and tact.

 

ETA: I should say, I meant to edit this to *may not* be English. I am unsure if that is the case in this specific thread, but patience is a good practice to adopt either way.

[Acme]

My inability to interpret such makes me embarrassed to say the least.

Don't give it a second thought. I'd be the first to admit that my writing can be obscured by my stylistic use of multiple levels of meaning. On top of that I often make sentences or paragraphs illustrative of the ideas or concepts I mean to describe with the words they contain. Judging by Hypervalent Iodine's admonition to me this can prove to be even more troublesome for those whose first language is not English. With Mike this may extend to differences in American English and the Queen's English.

 

That said, the whole point of this thread seems to be to talk about something that either people don't want to talk about, or don't like to talk about, or simply can't talk about. But as talking about people likely constitutes personal remarks, I will join the fray and refrain from talking about it.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

. ------------- .... ---------- GREECE 2014 ......----------------

 

. So much for my " whiling away the time, on the acropolis in Athens , looking up at the stars , discussing the cosmos, like. :-

 

. ---------- /// ....... ---- Socratese and Aristotle ".

 

...

.. Oops ! Court of Plato near by.

 

 

 

Mike. cheers chaps ! And chapesses !

Now , where was I ?

 

Ah yes !

 

I do not really think there is any dispute really about the recognition of cleverness of systems in Nature. That could not be demonstrated with a few analysis and comparisons ( engineering examples ref natural systems ) . If necessary .

 

But like every conscientious scientific procedure , we are supposed to make acknowledgement to the source ,

 

I merely posed what I thought were the alternatives.

 

 

It is up for grabs.

 

[] Some form of Master race already existing ( something like ) 10, Trillion in Number , beavering away with mechanism which would make our scientific minds burn

 

[] Some form of Thing that self generated from out of Chaos, in logic, number, math.probability, selective feedback system , super human like being/s

 

[] To an omniscient ... , that you have spoken about. (Aahh !!!! ///////////. ......... )

 

[] NO one lays claim for nature. Natural selection appeared one day out of nowhere with all it's extraordinary clever capabilities for generating a universe ,out of nothing.

 

[] Any and many more is up for grabs.. (But Nothing ...then the whole shebang ..to me is not common sense )

 

 

[] Or you just go on like me looking, thinking, and maybe concluding.

 

 

If it IS the cleverness thing that is the issue , then I will have to slog it out to deal with that. But I think most people have an intuitive feeling about nature , even if it is described with other names .

 

Like : - " elegantly sophisticated, far from perfect, and completely awe-inspiring " ref (phi for all)

 

 

VOTING SLIPS CAN BE FOUND IN THE BACK OF YOUR BRAIN SOMEWHERE .

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I am not sure why everybody gets so steamed up !

It's obviously a sensitive subject all round. It makes me wonder what everybody is so frightened about ?

 

I didn't think anyone was worked up or frightened (until you mentioned this). But it does seem to be a common reaction to being questioned to think that those who disagree must be "scared of the truth" or some such nonsense.

 

 

And something out there looks pretty d.. clever to me.

 

The problem is that you haven't defined "clever" beyond "it looks clever to me".

 

Until you can provide a definition and an objective test to determine whether object X is "clever" or not, then this idea is of absolutely no value. It is just an expression of your aesthetic appreciation of the world around you. (Which we all share for evolutionary reasons.)

 

How would one measure or otherwise test an object (ideally in an automatic clever-o-matic machine) to determine it's cleverness level (where greater than 8.7 confirms your hypothesis for example, while less than 6.39 disproves it).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I didn't think anyone was worked up or frightened (until you mentioned this). But it does seem to be a common reaction to being questioned to think that those who disagree must be "scared of the truth" or some such nonsense.

 

 

 

The problem is that you haven't defined "clever" beyond "it looks clever to me".

 

Until you can provide a definition and an objective test to determine whether object X is "clever" or not, then this idea is of absolutely no value. It is just an expression of your aesthetic appreciation of the world around you. (Which we all share for evolutionary reasons.)

 

How would one measure or otherwise test an object (ideally in an automatic clever-o-matic machine) to determine it's cleverness level (where greater than 8.7 confirms your hypothesis for example, while less than 6.39 disproves it).

Well not quite so mathematically precise as that , just at the moment , as I am upstairs , on my I pad with a dog wanting a walk. But

 

Just to keep things on the boil !

 

Dinosaurs grew up from little dinosaurs , with apparently , the big ones getting bigger with no predator binging them down . More and more lush vegetation , growing bigger and bigger where the only natural limit would be gravity breaking their leg bones , when they got too tall. Finally , part of the overall feedback system present in the universe was asteroids and super volcanoes flow eruptions. Darkness spread around the world and felled by feedback the dinosaur reign . Whereas little mammals underground could pop out , and do the business.

 

I agree not a mathematical loop at the moment. But I am not just up to Laplace transforms and double integration at this time of the day with the mini mammal (dog) chewing at my heels .

 

Now look at that face , by feeding back from a wolf pack until we choose a soft looking face to come and be a companion to us humans we have naturally selected a kind looking benign looking face to beam up at us so it gets it's walk ! Clever I say !

 

Come on ' sweetie ' I will take you out .

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

So no evidence at all for this idea?

 

Just "the universe is the way it is" (and you think that is "clever").

 

Please attempt to provide even a verbal definition of "clever"; currently, it appears to mean "exists".

 

For examples, is there anything, anything at all, that is "not clever"?

Edited February 27, 2014 by Strange

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So no evidence at all for this idea?

 

Just "the universe is the way it is" (and you think that is "clever").

 

Please attempt to provide even a verbal definition of "clever"; currently, it appears to mean "exists".

 

For examples, is there anything, anything at all, that is "not clever"?

I will! I promise I will . But the d.. Dog will not wait !

 

Mind you , I do keep saying , " the whole shaboodle , does seem pretty clever to me "

 

However , I will get a lot of pleasure in defining " clever " scientifically . With a worked example. No Laplace or double integrals or my head will hurt !

 

COME ON SWEETIE ! Not you . The dog !

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

If you still wonder why people are getting steamed up, there it is. You are reminded that you haven't answered the one question that might make this resemble a science proposal, and you blame the dog. Did he eat your homework, too?

.

I do not really think there is any dispute really about the recognition of cleverness of systems in Nature.]

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

I think nature is foofy. It is obvious. Very foofy.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If you still wonder why people are getting steamed up, there it is. You are reminded that you haven't answered the one question that might make this resemble a science proposal, and you blame the dog. Did he eat your homework, too?

 

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

I think nature is foofy. It is obvious. Very foofy.

what the h... does foofy mean ? She by the way ! Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

what the h... does foofy mean ?

 

That is exactly what we are asking you.

 

It is obvious the world is foofy, and full of squenk. But this "clever" you talk of, well I'm not so sure. Perhaps if you told us what it was and how to recognize it....

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That is exactly what we are asking you.

 

It is obvious the world is foofy, and full of squenk. But this "clever" you talk of, well I'm not so sure. Perhaps if you told us what it was and how to recognize it....

Ah well that is easy . That is the nature of genetic algorithms , the universe is full of genetic algorithms , which by nature the universe is intrinsically littered temporarily with failed or less successful solutions. These solutions are given none or fewer solutions. Whereas the better solutions are given higher numbers. Then when the generations go again, the good solutions prosper and the poor solutions fade away. But some detritus remains in odd corners.

[Strange]

I still don't see how you distinguish something "clever" from something "non clever".

 

Or are we back to "everything in nature is clever"? Which is semantically empty.

[tar]

I still don't see how you distinguish something "clever" from something "non clever".

 

Or are we back to "everything in nature is clever"? Which is semantically empty.

 

 

Mike,

 

I pulled this definition.

 

1. showing intelligence: demonstrating mental agility and creativity

It assumes a brain, for that is the organ within which such behavior would be manifest.

 

And thus I see the "rub" because you are hypothesing the requirement for there to be a brain big enough and capable enough to come up with the idea of "the whole shebang". The existence of such a brain, is not evident. We have not found such, and the existence of such is not logically feasible. The argument for such a brain is already so weak as to not contain any validity, what-so-ever.

 

The suggestion that such a brain MUST be present to explain existence, is an argument for the existence of a God with a brain.

 

Thus, the correct lumping of people (like you and me) that believe the universe is clever, into the "theory of watchmaker mind" category.

 

The universe cannot exhibit cleverness without a brain, for the definition of cleverness requires a brain.

 

The only instances of brains that we currently know about exist in lifeforms on Earth, or used to exist in the structured clumps of nerves, in some lifeform on Earth. Proving only that brains can evolve in this universe on the Earth, or perhaps on other rocks that can support life and the clumping of nerves.

 

And just having a clump of nerves does not give the clump any ability at all to create the stuff that clumped, only the ability to clump again in a similar pattern.

 

I often consider what you would have if you wrote an exact equation of a peanut butter cup. Designated every quark and spin, the position of every atom and molecule, ion and carbon chain. It would be a very long discription, and no doubt very clever, but it would not be sweet, creamy and delicious.

 

So not only is there no evidence of a master brain, or any requirement that there be one, but no indication that cleverness would provide the ingredients required to make a universe, or a peanut butter cup, or a watch.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I still don't see how you distinguish something "clever" from something "non clever".

 

Or are we back to "everything in nature is clever"? Which is semantically empty.

O.k. I was looking for a definition out there ! Where , I have had a chat with a few colleagues face to face, and it seems to me . That what I have to do is choose my definitions , and then use that to make the numerical analysis. Obviously the listener needs to agree the definition , so long as they are not things that people do not like ,

 

understandably like " everything " is clever . Ok. I have a better platform to create.

 

My definitions as to what is definitely not clever > 8.7 What is definitely clever < 6.39. Not sure what in

 

between is ?? This sounds like a bell curve with deviation !

 

Mike

Mike,

 

I pulled this definition.

 

1. [*]showing intelligence: demonstrating mental agility and creativity

....

a peanut butter cup, ?

 

Regards, TAR

Sorry TAR it must be an American thing. What quite is a peanut butter cup ?

 

Mike

 

-------------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------------///

A definition of "cleverness" to make measurements. :

. Now

. " INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE"

A discrete system will be referred to as :-

. Clever ( INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE) if it has reducing entropy .

Moving from a state of disorder to a state of more order. 5 To. 0

 

A discrete system will be referred to as :-

without Cleverness ( without INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE) , if it has static or increasing entropy.

Moving from a state of order to a state of more disorder. 5 To. 10

 

------------ -------------- ------------------ ----------------- ------------------///

Mike

 

the Broken Glass

 

 

moving to more disorder more entropy

 

the Broken Glass. Say 5 moving to 8

 

Smooth stones Less entropy 5 going to 4

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Phi for All]

I really don't think you'll get anywhere using the word "clever". It implies coordinated thought and intelligence and trying to show this exists as a trait of "the universe" has never been successfully supported.

 

Everything you've shown as "clever" has mechanisms in reality that are well understood and don't need intelligence behind them. The processes work well because they are the most successful, not because there is someone guiding them. You're thinking too subjectively, like it would be clever of nature to rain on you because you got dirty working in the garden. It's most likely a pleasant coincidence, not a clever universe doing you a clever favor.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I really don't think you'll get anywhere using the word "clever". It implies coordinated thought and intelligence and trying to show this exists as a trait of "the universe" has never been successfully supported.

.

..

- :: How about : INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE instead of CLEVER

 

Forget for the time being Who or what is responsible for this innate progressive change .

THAT CAN BE A MATTER OF PERSONAL CHOICE AT A LATER STAGE EVEN IF YOU CHOOSE / CLAIM NOTHING IS RESPONSIBLE.

____________________ ____________ ____________________ ___________________

 

TAR

Mike,

 

I pulled this definition.

 

• showing intelligence: demonstrating mental agility and creativity

It assumes a brain, for that is the organ within which such behavior would be manifest.

 

And thus I see the "rub" because you are hypothesing the requirement for there to be a brain big enough and capable enough to come up with the idea of "the whole shebang". The existence of such a brain, is not evident. We have not found such.

.

As a relevant yet slight mental digression. Ref [ Possible Contribution of Our Current Universe ]........

 

I have given some thought to the idea that we progress from now into the far far future. Assuming we do not blow ourselves to smithereens or are blown to smithereens. Time goes on , thousands ,millions billions of years . The universe gets to become very populated with our species. We develope combined intelligence and capability of manufacture ,that would make today's manufacture like making snow balls by comparison. Then we could make stars planets even galaxies and black holes.

 

If by some querk or skill, We as a combined escalating universe wide civilization and colosal intelligence , could revisit the start of the universe , then we could make what we now see as our current universe. Future We could possibly then become part of the vast intelligent brain you describe .

 

Mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

Good afternoon Mike. G'day et als. Morning for me. I have no dog to walk but I have a garden to dig in preparation for Spring and in anticipation of seeing the smiling faces of plants.

 

So on with the discussion. Several things come to mind. First, and possibly foremost, is the matter of definitions. One word. Dictionary. Get one and use it. Clever is well defined, has several meanings, and does not need new ones other than the usual way words get new definitions which is by way of common usage that comes to the attention of dictionary writers. If current definitions -including listed archaic uses- of a word do not fit your intention, then don't use the word. And to reiterate, don't try and redefine them. You only confuse and/or alienate your readers.

 

Second, on the issue of considering your readers Mike and with careful treading so as to have constructive criticism not be construed as a personal remark/attack, I have this observation. Your use of unconventional punctuation, CAPITALIZATION, and s p a c I n g

is

 

off-putting

 

TO -------------------------------the ReAdEr. Reading your posts is often like walking a flight of poorly built stairs that have different heights and tread widths. So much effort goes into not stumbling or falling that one questions whether the TRIP is worth the risk.

 

Lastly, I have seen some shreds here that do have some hope of going into a well-framed discussion that satisfies you Mike as well as many of the rest of we respondents. Specifically the ideas of feedback loops and peoples' positioning and perspective in and on this wonderful and sometimes dumbfounding situation that we find ourselves in as self-aware thingys. It strikes me that the real issue is one of consciousness -or awareness if you prefer- and that before any speculation on other-than-human consciousness or self-awareness is undertaken that it is only good & proper to establish some consensus on the human condition.

 

I have in mind as it happens a very particular layout which I have found is just such a good and proper approach, but I rather think it deserves its own thread. To that end I have some reading to do in order to refresh my memory, as well as some thinking, ruminating, and other such considerations as I see fit to accomplish a clever and worthwhile presentation. Mind you the layout is not mine and the layer-outer is of the opinion that no one can truly prove anything in Philosophy. With that I am in full agreement.

 

 

[Strange]

the Broken Glass

 

The smooth stones Less entropy

 

 

You are, again, making purely subjective judgements.

 

You decide the broken glass is "non clever" but look more closely: look at that incredibly sharp edge; like a surgical instrument. And look at the curve of that edge. Beautiful. Definitely clever.

 

As for that pebble, nice at is is, it is all that remains of the most fantastic sculpture of children playing with a dolphin that appeared to be flying. It was truly marvellous. Most of it is turned to grit and dust apart that dull little pebble. Definitely not clever.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.................

Lastly, I have seen some shreds here that do have some hope of going into a well-framed discussion that satisfies you Mike as well as many of the rest of we respondents. Specifically the ideas of feedback loops and peoples' positioning and perspective in and on this wonderful and sometimes dumbfounding situation that we find ourselves in as self-aware thingys. I

............................

 

Thank you for constructive comments. i am going to take a re-cap to see where I am at the moment with this thread !

 

mainly with a new descriptor : INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE instead of CLEVER

 

A means of objective observation with numbers

: :

. [A] if it has reducing entropy .Moving from a state of disorder to a state of more order. 5 To. 0

. , if it has static or increasing entropy. Moving from a state of order to a state of more disorder. 5 To. 10

 

mike

 

You are, again, making purely subjective judgements.

 

 

I appreciate the examples ,that I have used , may need adding to. This , in order to get the true spit of this investigation and analysis .

 

However I believe I now have a reasonable basis to have what I think is :

 

A means to look at and obtain objective ,numerical proportions of INNATE CHANGE and see whether there is in fact INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE by reducing entropy, as well as INNATE normal increasing entropy , as a proportion.

 

mike

Edited February 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A means of objective observation with numbers

: :

. [A] if it has reducing entropy .Moving from a state of disorder to a state of more order. 5 To. 0

. , if it has static or increasing entropy. Moving from a state of order to a state of more disorder. 5 To. 10

 

A means to look at and obtain objective ,numerical proportions of INNATE CHANGE and see whether there is in fact INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE by reducing entropy, as well as INNATE normal increasing entropy , as a proportion.

 

An Objective test. 100 individual aspects of the Universe across Space and Time From below the surface of the EARTH to:

The Largest Structure in the Observable Universe ( Space ) and The Big Bang ( Time )

.

TESTING FOR THE DIRECTION OF ENTROPY ( INCREASE , STATIC , DECREASE ) with Values .

 

 

 

 

mike

Edited March 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

An Objective test. 100 individual aspects of the Universe across Space and Time From below the surface of the EARTH to:

The Largest Structure in the Observable Universe ( Space ) and The Big Bang ( Time )

.

TESTING FOR THE DIRECTION OF ENTROPY ( INCREASE , STATIC , DECREASE ) with Values .

 

 

DSCF4071.JPG

 

 

mike

Naming the 100 entities and making tests :- As an initial example :-

 

1. Finding oneself in a cavern some distance underground . Stalactites dripping , dark, water at my feet , cold . What can I observe. Possibly the process of mineral deposition in the stalactite production. Some bacteria in the water and on the rock, eeking out a living .

The rocks surrounding me , doing whatever rocks do in these cicumstances. The air is dank ? Humm!

 

O.k. So my observation no 1 is :-

That there is here a little mini environment . What is the state of entropy here?

There is change afoot, is it deteriorating , less order , more entropy , static, or more order lower entropy?

Individually there are changes going on. Chemicals are being deposited, biological digestion is no doubt occurring , rocks are under pressure and compressing . As a whole though I think if I returned , there would be a change to more order , all-be-it fairly slowly . Entropy is decreasing . Moving toward order.

 

1 . entropy = 4

 

( where entropy , 5 = static , 0 = perfectly ordered , 10 = absolutely disordered

Mike

Edited March 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike,

 

I like the entropy bit.

 

It seems that life on Earth has found a way to grab form and structure and organization and pass it along, in a universe that mostly otherwise seems to moving in the disorganized, toward entropy direction. But that is life on Earth, and probably I would subjectively prefer that over other arrangements, being an example of it.

 

Still, in terms of "cleverness", organized things seem to have more of it, than unorganized things, and since there is no "Maxwell's Demon" to arrange things into hot spots, in any size thermodynamic system, which by law would tend to have to gain entropy and lose hot spot and cold spot differentials between which heat could flow and do work, then any hot spots we find, could be considered to have cleverly arranged their hot spottedness.

 

Thus providing a measure of cleverness, suitable for a science forum, and one which would not require any intent or preplanning or design engineering degree, just a measure of the system in question having the ability to do work, and saying, "Well that was cleverly arranged".

 

I had had this conversation with myself about twenty years ago when I bought a bunch of books on QED and Relativity and such and was trying to figure out what the universe was "trying" to do. I thought perhaps the atom was the instigator, but interestingly enough wanted to get rid of its energy, a photon at a time, as its electrons attempted to relax to a rest state. "Wanting" to become "unhot", and such a plan would work very quickly, since its so easy to get rid of that photon of energy, except for every other atom in the universe is attempting the same feat and that makes a lot of photons liable to be coming in from all directions, enough to bump that weary electron right back up to the next energy level. So the "plan" to get rid of all its energy, does not work out for the poor atom, so it can not be all that clever. But we still have hot spots (suns) and cold spots (voids) so maybe there are "organizing" aspects to the arrangement, that otherwise seems to be heading in a separating type expansion direction, and a thermodynamic direction toward entropy. One clever organizer for instance might be gravity. Pulling together clumps of atoms (all individually attempting to lose their energy) into dense balls of the stuff that all together give off a rather organized stream of particles and photons in all directions, making Suns a rather clever group of objects, able to provide organised energy with which work can be done. And clumps of cooler matter like the Earth for instance, within the environs of such a clever source of organized energy, can learn "to live" off its cleverness.

 

Regards, TAR2

And as someone already alluded, if there was not a natural way for hydrogen atoms to evolve into "clever" things, we would not be here, talking about it.

 

Tar, I really would like your deep thoughts on all this,[ your above comments !] as I am Using Entropy now as the TESTING DEVICE in an extensive probe of the whole shaboodle-boodle to see how it is performing .? Quantitatively and Objectively .! As I have been urged., so to do.

 

I personally think there might be something quite profound to be had, here !

 

I have a fairly good 'nose' for these sort of things. It is a bit like dogs sniffing out drugs.

 

mike.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[tar]

Mike,

 

I am surprised that you have lived such a deprived life as to have never encountered a peanut butter cup.

 

On the cleveness scale, I rank the peanut butter cup third right after indoor plumbing and electricity in terms of human achievement.

 

It seems that someone carrying a chocolate bar collided with someone carrying a jar of peanut butter and an argument insued as there was bits of chocolate in the jar and peanut butter all over the bar.

"YOU GOT CHOCOLATE IN MY PEANUT BUTTER" one participant in the story exclaimed. "YOU GOT PEANUT BUTTER ON MY CHOCOLATE" was the retort. This accident happily resulted in the third cleverest achievement of humankind. The Reeses Peanut Butter Cup. I do not know why they are outlawed in Britain and Italy, but I think there is some evil oppression of wonderfullness afoot in London and Rome. Not very clever of you Brits. Not very clever at all.

 

If you would like, it is not difficult to simulate the experience, although in your repressive regimes you may have to conduct this experiment behind closed doors, under the cover of darkness, but obtain a scoop of peanut and some chocolate morsels (if they are also outlawed break a chocolate bar into bits), mix them together so that all the peanut butter has chocolate in it, and all the chocolate has peanut butter on it. Place a spoonful of the mixture in your mouth and you will have a pretty good idea of what a peanut butter cup is. A lidded cup, made of chocolate, filled with peanut butter, with just the right amount of sugar, added to both.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I give it at least a 7.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike,I am surprised that you have lived such a deprived life as to have never encountered a peanut butter cup.On the cleveness scale, I rank the peanut butter cup third right after indoor plumbing and electricity in terms of human achievement.It seems that someone carrying a chocolate bar collided with someone carrying a jar of peanut butter and an argument insued as there was bits of chocolate in the jar and peanut butter all over the bar."YOU GOT CHOCOLATE IN MY PEANUT BUTTER" one participant in the story exclaimed. "YOU GOT PEANUT BUTTER ON MY CHOCOLATE" was the retort. This accident happily resulted in the third cleverest achievement of humankind. The Reeses Peanut Butter Cup. I do not know why they are outlawed in Britain and Italy, but I think there is some evil oppression of wonderfullness afoot in London and Rome. Not very clever of you Brits. Not very clever at all.If you would like, it is not difficult to simulate the experience, although in your repressive regimes you may have to conduct this experiment behind closed doors, under the cover of darkness, but obtain a scoop of peanut and some chocolate morsels (if they are also outlawed break a chocolate bar into bits), mix them together so that all the peanut butter has chocolate in it, and all the chocolate has peanut butter on it. Place a spoonful of the mixture in your mouth and you will have a pretty good idea of what a peanut butter cup is. A lidded cup, made of chocolate, filled with peanut butter, with just the right amount of sugar, added to both.Regards, TARI give it at least a 7.

Brilliant! Sounds highly calorific !

 

Anyway you are supposed to be talking " ENTROPY " at me , with me, or against me ! Not the 3 rd joy after ... Whatever !

 

Mike