• Good / Bad Science? February 14 - 04:40 pm

GENOMES, GOOD OR BAD? --thoughts on a science
firewall.

Human genomes are the latest breakthrough in
science in our battle against disease. The
ability to map the human gene, and those of other
living things, is being seen as a panacea for
designing drug medications that will be tailor
made for each individual, both to ward off
potential predisposed health disorders, and to
counter attack diseases that invade the body. But
can this be interpreted as unequivocally good?
Is it possible for this science to go awry and
cause more havoc than cure, which raises the
question: Can good science go bad? Atomic bombs
and nuclear waste come to mind. Even antibiotics
seem to have the undesirable side effect of
weakening the body's natural immune system,
allowing the replication of progressively stronger
viruses and bacteria. But there is a more
sinister side effect to be concerned about: That
science uses the new knowledge in ways that
exercises unwanted controls over human beings.
For example, can a genetic code be written that
identifies potentially undesirable traits in
children or adults? If so, and they are
identified as being criminal, disease vectors,
antisocial, mentally incompetent, or otherwise
dangerous to society; can they then become
isolated from the rest of society, either by
coercive action or by legal restraint? Or can
genetic tinkering produce mutant monstrosities,
even cause environmental havoc, or pandemic
plagues; or, on the margin, even forced cloning?
Are we as the public safe from this type of
science invasion that threatens our well being?
In most progressive societies, individual human
beings are safeguarded by certain human rights,
such as being innocent until proven guilty. Would
a genetic fingerprint jeopardize this presumed
innocence, or would it constitute an automatic
guilt? None would wish to restrain progress in
scientific discovery, but there should be a
firewall that stops the spread of scientific
theory which could directly or indirectly attack
us, especially the right to being who we are, our
basic fundamental freedom. One such social
firewall would exist in a society whose social
agreement, its social contract, supports the
concept that we are free as long as we do not
violate a law of agreement, where we do not force
another human being, or the people, against their
agreement. With regards to genetic research, this
law of agreement would place a firewall on
government or corporate agents from discriminating
against any individual who may have a propensity
towards an undesirable action or trait, but in
whom this undesirable characteristic fails to
manifest. In the case of scientific research, it
would apply the same principle to whereby the
fruits of research cannot be forced on the
community without the people's consent.
Genetically engineered tomatoes come to mind. We
should be able to retain our freedom of choice as
to what we eat. Imagine a law that prohibits your
local grocer from informing you that the tomatoes
you buy either are or are not genetically altered?
I can, because this has happened, to promote
genetically altered seeds and produce. So where
does it stop? Do we forego the potentialities of
new sciences because they may become invasive and
unstoppable? And by whom? I think the answer is
no. We cannot place restrictions on research, and
with this most will agree. But neither should we
empower the results of research and scientific
findings to rule our individual rights, to rule
our freedom of choice. In its most sinister form,
we could be pushed into an Orwellian, or Huxlian,
future where even the right to reproduce is
regulated and thus dictated by those who are in
power to exercise authority based on scientific
facts, i.e.: You and you may regenerate, but you
may not. It is inevitable that we will be faced
with these choices in the future, but at the same
time, we should guard against the spread of an
undesirable power shift from individual choices to
those dictated by authorities who use science as a
right to coerce us against our human rights.
Mapping the human gene should be viewed as a
positive for our future, and not as a nightmarish
scenario of an Orwellian like existence for the
sake of science, even if it is well intentioned
for the public good. There is no good or bad
science. Discovery is. But that is why we need a
science firewall, that the public good should
always be safeguarded by an individual's good.

--Ivan D. Alexander

for further readings on genomics, go to:
http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/
http://www.mssm.edu/genetics/complete_genomes.html
http://www.tigr.org/
http://www.bocklabs.wisc.edu/ed/genomes.html
http://www.pecorporation.com

ROTATIONAL INDUCED MOTION AND LIFT: The flying
saucer principle.

Hypothesis: If in nature there is evidence of
rotational spin induced by the center directed
force of gravity, such as exhibited by the
gravitational inward force of planets, or the
gravitational force of solar systems and galaxies
pulling heavenly bodies towards a given center of
revolution, much like when a skater spins faster
when bringing in his arms; then why not duplicate
this rotational spin by inducing the same force in
an artificial way? What if we built a craft,
round in shape, or like a disk, with hollow ribs
extending from the craft's outer perimeter to its
center, then up that center, and back again in a
loop to the edge of the circumference, so that a
magnetized fluid could be free to travel within
these ribs. To duplicate the forces of nature,
this fluid would be forced, magnetically, to
travel from the perimeter to the craft's center at
the lower channel, which would induce it to spin.
However, this would be canceled out as the fluid
travels back over the upper channel to the edge
again. So, to counter this, the path of travel
should be uneven, shorter at the lower, hence of
greater velocity and force, from the outside in,
and slower at the top, hence lower force velocity,
from the center out. This can be accomplished by
having a straight line of travel of the inward
going fluid, then up the axis, and then an arched
and downward travel for the fluid going back out
again to the edge. If within each hollow rib the
fluid rushes into the center, then up that center,
and then arching back over a curve back down to
the edge, to start this process again in a
continuous loop, we may be duplicating what is
happening in the hot molten interior of planets,
or the very hot gases inside a star. Except those
bodies are spheres, so the up and down motion is
canceled out. But if our craft has a bulge at the
top and flat at the bottom, (like a flying
saucer), it would then meet the requirements of
our design. This would have the effect that in
some ways duplicates what happens by the passage
of air over the curved wing of an airplane.
Because the motion is uneven, the spinning craft
would then exert also an uplifting force as the
fluid travels down from the top to the bottom
again. An actual model to demonstrate
this would have to be tested. If it works as
said, then modifications can easily be made to
maintain a stationary center for the craft's power
source and passengers. The direction of this
craft would be achieved by manipulating the rate
of flow at the various ribs, each independent of
the other, so that some are at greater velocity,
with more lift, and the other side slower, with
less lift. In this way, the craft can be tilted,
and any desired direction achieved. Also, because
of the spinning exterior, less resistance from the
air in which it travels would be achieved, hence
less friction and heat, since at every moment a
new edge of the surface is expose to the oncoming
air as it travels forth. The big question in this
hypothesis is this: Will the inward forced fluid
achieve the craft's spin? I believe that this is
easy. Yes. Then, will the parabolic flow from
the top of the craft down the side of its upper
portion of the disk produce lift? Or is the flow
up the center canceled out in its force by the
flow down the parabolic sides? This I cannot
ascertain, since it would have to be tested in an
actual experiment. I suspect the parabolic
downward motion of the fluid mass over a larger
surface would equal an opposite reaction from the
structure within which it is housed, overcoming
the force of the motion up the axis, so that lift
would be achieved. Now, if it does work, then we
will have duplicated an important force of nature,
not only to replicate rotational motion, but to
achieve lift as well. Very little energy would be
needed aboard to carry out the motion of the fluid
within the craft. In space, this principle would
work even better, as gravity would be of lesser
consequence. Tickets to Mars will be on sale
shortly.

--Galileo2

BELIEF vs TRUTH

There are times when the brutality of scientific
truth needs to be suspended, and what we believe
as human beings is more important than the truth,
for a time. Call it myth.

POINT OF VIEW

Everything that comes from us is only our Point of
View. Everything we think of, believe in, and
accept as true is all, nevertheless, only an
opinion formed by our mind. No matter how
factual, rational, logical, and scientific we may
think we are, once we accept an idea, we "buy"
into it, and it becomes ours. But it still is
only our "point of view". It is impossible for
this to be otherwise. So no matter what "truth"
we feel we offer by word or script, either
initiated from us or in response to another's
thoughts and action, they are always of necessity
only our "opinion" from our perspective, what we
had accepted. So, we must understand that
everything said to us by another is only their
point of view, and everything we say to another,
no matter what we believe, is only our point of
view. In fact, all facts are really only
opinions, from a given point of view.

POINT OF VIEW, ibid.(see above)

"Only your point of view/opinion, of course."

REDSHIFT: Is our universe expanding, or is it a
cosmic illusion?

That Redshift is a cosmic fact pointing to an ever
expanding, even accelerating, universe is an
astronomical theory that has gained much
acceptance. But is this phenomenon equal in all
directions, that all heavenly bodies are moving
away from us equally at an accelerating velocity?
If so, that this redshift is equal in all
directions, does this not put us at the center of
our universe? We had been there before, in
Medieval times, or Aristotalian antiquity, but
this was later disproven. Then, if instead we
were on the periphery of our universe, would it
not reason that some heavenly bodies in one
direction would be moving away from us at greater
speeds than others of another direction? Only at
the center would they all be moving away equally.
And if this cannot be shown, then can it be that
the redshift phenomenon is due to some other
cause, perhaps that light weakens with distance
and thus goes red? Or perhaps the universe's
other energies, light and dark, of which we are
still ignorant work in ways that motion becomes
accelerated with distance? If this last were
true, think of the possibilities: The further you
went away from your source, the greater your
velocity in space! But I digress. Really, do we
really think the universe is expanding at an
accelerating pace, or is redshift simply a cosmic
illusion? I don't know, but if it is true, then
in a 100 million years, the sky will be very dark
at night.

Big Bang... Big Bust?

If Big Bang theory is predicated on the red shift
phenomenon, and if this is wrong, then isn't the
Big Bang a Big Bust? Back to square one...

INFINITY-MINUS ONE

Zeno's paradox states that if I take a large step
across a room, up to half the room, and then take
another step half as big, followed by another step
again half as big, and so on, that I will never
reach the other side of the room, unless I take an
infinity of steps, which is impossible. No matter
how many steps, I will always be at infinity-minus
one.
This paradox is an example of splitting numbers
into an infinitesimal smallness, to reach an
unreachable number, zero. On the other hand, an
infinity of bigness, which approaches a Grand
Totality of All, Infinity, is equally
unachievable, at least in our minds. Yet, there
may be parallels in the real universe that
approximate these mental puzzles. If at
infinity-minus one in smallness is made to look
like zero+plus one in bigness, then we have
something interesting.
By example, compare the universe at a very great
distance, where light seems to shift into the red
zone as receding objects accelerate away from us
with distance; there, the light grows weaker and
weaker until it reaches the end of the universe,
infinity, and ceases to exist altogether. Then,
the vanishing light is at infinity-minus one. At
the other end, at zero+plus one, we have light
disappear also, where light cannot escape the
black hole, postulated to exist at the center of
every galaxy. In either case, we have Zeno's
paradox: At infinity-minus one, the light never
reaches the end of the universe; at zero+plus one,
the light never escapes its source. Now suspend
for a moment what are astronomy's and physics'
currently favored beliefs: That time slows down
with velocity approaching the speed of light; and
that the universe is expanding from the Big Bang.
Instead, replace these theories with this: That
the universe is not expanding; rather light's
energy changes as it recedes further and further
away from us, which gives us the illusion of an
expanding universe, and which is a condition of
how the universe is built. And that time is a
mental construct that has no physical reality
counterpart, and thus only exists for us as a
measurement in our own heads. What then is left?
One, that the further in space we travel, the
closer we come to that mysteriously unreachable
point on the horizon where light, or x-ray, or
radio waves, energy is reduced to invisibility.
And the other, that this unreachable horizon is
not so far away as one would suppose, and can
actually be measured by using Zeno's paradox; by
thus calculating the point in space away from the
source where light slows down, or red shifts, by
half, and then double the distance, which in
effect is the other side of the room reached after
an infinity of "light" steps. Is this not
thrilling? We thus can know the barrier of our
universe! And other possibilities! At that
distant barrier of our known universe, what
exists? Are we then at point zero+plus one in
some other universe?
May the same can be said for black holes and the
event horizon, where light ceases to exist? There
is a fond theory that if one rushes at a black
hole and bounces off, he will reappear in another
universe... maybe. Or maybe the black hole
phenomenon is some version of zero+plus one within
infinity-minus one; that is the place where the
physical reality of our universe interacts with
itself. If so, then maybe the theoreticians who
postulate black holes as doors to another
universe, itself an article of faith, may not be
so far fetched after all.
So, in conclusion, from our point of view, all
reality starts with zero, here somewhere, a
theoretically unproven point in space, plus one.
And all reality, as it can be known to us, ends
very far away at infinity, itself also unproven,
some great distance where light ceases to exist,
minus one. That is the envelope within which our
universe exists. And beyond? Zero+plus one
approaches infinity-minus one, where the universe
either doubles back on itself through a black
hole, or, like the convection cycles of some
massive universal star-filled existence, it starts
a whole process all over again.

AIDS: Quest for the Origin of AIDS/Controversial book (The River, by Edward Hooper) spurs search for how the worldwide scourge of HIV began.

RE: "Serially passaged" viruses in humans through the reuse of unsterilized needles:


(See links below to article by John Blanchard /San Francisco Chronicle, January 14 & 15, 2001)
http://www.sfgate.com/


Part I: Book spurs search for how scourge began.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/14/MN140641.DTL

Part II: Did modern medicine spread the epidemic?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/15/MN162301.DTL

PLANETARY SOCIETY
http://planetary.org/

WHERE IS THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION?
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/temp/StationLoc.html

Greetings from PiB.Net ...

**************************************************
KOESTENBAUM'S WEEKLY LEADERSHIP THOUGHT

Free will is outside of the natural order. Free
will is consciousness itself. Free will is the
beginning. Free will exists at the source. Free
will is inaccessible to itself. Free will cannot
be explained in words, for words are things and
actions and relations, and free will is before all
actions, things and relations. Free will is what
makes all three possible.
                              
                March 2, 2001

http://www.pib.net/

THE CRYMS RESURRECT

May 9th, 2001. Two Italian researchers spread the news that a form of extraterrestrial life exists. Living microbes have been discovered in meteorites from billions of years ago

Exclusive rights are no longer due to the population of the earth. Life was not born on our planet. The discovery has been made by a group of researchers from the Federico II University in Naples, in collaboration with the Geomare-Sud Institute of the CNR (National Research Council) in Naples.
The hypothesis of the first form of extraterrestrial life, that has been proposed for years in different labs all over the world, has been validated by the discovery of minute bacterium inside rocks and meteorites, dating back billions of years ago.
Bruno D'Argenio and Giuseppe Geraci, belonging to the Science Faculty of the Neapolitan university, have examined 50 specimens from sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks; minerals; volcanic glass and other solid natural material. The scientists' satisfaction was accompanied by a comprehensible and human disconcertedness when they found the cristallomicrobi, or as they are known in short, "cryms".
They measure slightly more than one-thousandth of a millimeter and are capable of resisting to extreme temperatures and pressures. But the extraordinary fact is that, once they are extracted, they regain their mobility and the capacity to reproduce. And this is the breakthrough that opens the way to the idea of interactions between energy and life, that are yet unknown today.
The two Italian researchers declare that "the cryms' characteristics indicate that life, although in a quiescent state, may exist anywhere in the solar system and, in an active state, on all those bodies where the presence of water in the liquid state can be hypothesized".
It was already affirmed in 1982 that life had arrived on earth through panspermia using meteorites and comets as vectors. The British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle believed that some interstellar materials possess biological material characteristics, bacterium in particular. And he defined our planet as a "final assembly room". At the time, his theory fell into oblivion.

Giulia Marrone
Translated by Vicky Farallo/Bravaitalia.it

ONN-Wisdom is ONN's publication for members. Here
is a book excerpt from *In Earth's Company*,
published in ONN-Wisdom. After this was
published, members were invited to exchange email
with the author, Carl Frankel.

The following is excerpted from *In Earth's
Company: Business, Environment and the Challenge
of Sustainability*, by Carl Frankel, published by
New Society Publishers. ISBN 0-86571-380-4

From Chapter 2: Sustainable Development and the
New Humanism.

The term sustainable development' describes how we
would like the world to be -- fair, healthy and
secure. As such, it belongs to a venerable
tradition -- utopian thinking. But it is
utopianism with a twist, the result of two basic
changes in our circumstances. Now that the world
has been fully colonized, there are no more
mysterious "other places" to site an ideal
society. We have to do it "here," at home, in the
world-space that we know.

Still more fundamentally, we have arrived at a
point in history where we control evolution at
least as much as it controls us. Our power to
transform nature, whether inadvertently -- as in
the cases of biodiversity loss and global climate
change -- or intentionally -- through genetic

engineering -- is something utterly new and
totally rewrites the social and ethical rules of
the game. One consequence is that we can no
longer afford to be fanciful in our utopianism.
And so, enter sustainable development: it is
utopianism gone pragmatic -- fueled by urgency and
tethered to this world

Sustainable development is a relatively new
concept -- its first use dates back to the 1970s
-- and one still very much under construction.
The most frequently cited definition comes from
the Brundtland Commission, which in 1987 equated
sustainable development with development or
progress that "meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs." Thus
sustainable development implies the integration of
economic and environmental planning: wealth
continues to be created, but through processes
that do not draw down the material resources on
which we and future generations depend. We grow
without depleting our 'natural capital.'

Once we get beyond the basic Brundtland Commission
definition, sustainable development is most often
thought of in terms of a triad, or the "Three E's"
-- Economics, Environment and Equity. What
sustainable development requires, according to
this view, is the harmonious balancing of these
three elements: growth is to be pursued in a
manner consistent with long-term environmental
protection and social fairness. (A variant on
this is the 'three P's' -- Poverty, Population and
Pollution.)

A third way to characterize sustainable
development is less conventional but also useful.
For the past two centuries, the industrial
revolution has been transforming the world in ways
both good and bad. However, as human population
grows and the global 'sink' capacity to absorb
wastes shrinks, the design principles that guided
the industrial revolution are becoming steadily
more problematic. From this perspective,
sustainable development can be seen as the logical
successor to the industrial revolution, i.e., as
*the (inevitable) post-industrial revolution*.
More specifically, it can be seen as a
post-industrial revolution with two purposes, one
*conceptual* -- to articulate a set of design
principles appropriate to a world whose population
is expected to top out at 10 billion or more --
and the other practical -- to remedy the
unintended negative consequences of
industrialization.

All these definitions have merit but are
incomplete. True, sustainable development is
about securing the welfare of future generations,
and about balancing the 'three E's' (or 'three
P's'), and about formulating the design principles
of the post-industrial revolution. But -- and
this point is as important as it is overlooked --
it has a vertical as well as a *horizontal*
dimension. Life is not only *technical* and
*objective*; it is also *soulful* and
*subjective*. Our conception of sustainable
development needs to do justice to these
"vertical" dimensions of human experience as well.
Sustainable development implies a new and
healthier balance in how we conduct our human
affairs, one that celebrates depth along with
surfaces, community along with individuality,
spirituality along with materialism, art along
with linear technique.

++ NEWS ABOUT ONN

** From Science to God

Physicist Peter Russell is a paradigm pioneer who
has much to say to ONN. Peter was a guest in 1998
and exchanged email with ONN members. His latest
book, *From Science to God*, is the story of
Peter's lifelong exploration into the nature of
consciousness.

*From Science to God* is available as an ONN
Noetic Selection Book. For $35, you can become a
member of ONN and receive this book, autographed.
The book will be mailed with no extra charge for
shipping within US. For $15, you can order the
autographed book without membership. Use the ONN
website's *Join ONN* form to order the book.

For more on ONN, please go to:
http://www.wisdomtalk.org

DNA Genome Research, Good or Bad?

The 'human gene' is now approximately 96% decoded, and with the likelihood that it will soon be completely identified, we are entering a new age of scientific research and applications. This gene research has also been carried out for other living things, which now brings us genetically engineered foods, for example. My inquiry for this Board is this:

"What does this Genetics research pose in terms of risks and benefits for the human population, and for the other living inhabitants of our planet as well, both now and into the future? Is this research a 'good' or is it a 'bad'?"

I ask this question not as a scientist, but rather as a philosopher. In effect, are we about to open a new panacea as it pertains to improved health, conquest of deadly disease, more desirable human reproduction, more abundant food supplies, better crime control and prosecution? Or are we faced with a Pandora's box of genetic branding and discrimination, nutritionally corrupt foods, compulsory gene manipulations for people who are considered to be at risk, or the escape into the world of genetically engineered species? On the dark side of the 'bad' might also be added the fear that science will create uncontrollable monstrosities, or genetic dead ends, that interbreed with viable stock in nature and thus augur their extinction. So these are the problems as well as benefits that the future application of DNA genome research may bring about.

My personal view is that if this research were confined to the laboratory only and never released into the world, then this would pose no risk, and the 'pure' research and would be happily endorsed by both the scientific community and the population at large. But this is not realistic. Research of this kind cannot be entirely contained, either because of escapees or because of interaction with 'treated' subjects, so there is always the risk of leakage into the natural world outside. Also, because the public at large is eager for the positive benefits of Genomes mapping, there is popular support for this work. So I do not believe the research could ever be stopped, even if it proved to be unduly dangerous, which at this point is still an unknown, because these fears may in fact be unfounded. On the other hand, however, because it will be 'interactive' with people outside the laboratory, then it may need to be philosophically guided in some way. For example, all of us who drive a vehicle on the nation's roadways have to apply for permission to do so, show competence in knowing how to drive and the rules of the road, and then become licensed, which gives us the right, or 'agreement', to drive. This does not remove the risk that we may still endanger ourselves or others on the road, but it does bring in a certain level of 'competency' to the driving experience. Can something similar be designed for the scientific community as they embark on the roadways of the Genetic map? Should the scientific community abide by certain 'rules of the road', as it were, as they embark on research that may have profound effects on us and on future generations? I can see that there are philosophical implications here. At issue are the rights of individuals who become affected by this research, and the rights of the people doing scientific research (with its risks and benefits of new discoveries); and how it affects existing social agreements, whether or not this research is somehow 'coercive' on individuals and the environment, etc. In essence, is this Genome research a 'Good'? Or is it a 'Bad'?

I would be happy to hear your thoughts on this brave new world of DNA Genome related research.

Sincerely,

Ivan

By davet84 on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 06:55 pm:

Hi Ivan,

Well one thing that ocurs to me is that Humanity's
scientific 'nouse' has at last been found to have
outdistanced its ethical capacity to consider the
implications.

There's a lesson in that according to my
epistemological objectivity.

Dave.

-------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 01:03 am:

Ivan,

The potential knowledge gained from the genome
project could be the greatest discovery in all of
recorded history; that is, until some fool decides
to play God.

Anon, the 1st one

-------------------------------------------------
By G-man767 on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 11:38 pm:

Practical beneficial promises are many. But
Symbolically: If Homo Sapiens seeks to Replicate
the Original Synthesis of its own Conception, then
the Quest becomes that of Self-Attribution of
ourselves as our own parent...in hopes that we, as
self-creator, might conquer collective mortality,
naturally, not transcendentally (or
extra-naturalis). The notion that Creation is
always (Re)Creation seems to be at work in this.
Research does enhance our survival odds, and yet
we have such limited knowledge and foresight as
yet...which is my fear here. G-man

-------------------------------------------------
By GDennis on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 10:21 am:
G-man,

Excellently put!

Take care,
Graham

-------------------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 11:15 am:

Hi Dave, G-man, Anon-1st, Graham,

Thanks for your inputs. I would also like to add
that there seems to be a growing dichotomy in the
medical field where, on the one hand, there is a
reach for better science, better treatment of the
body's health disorders with more research and
pharmaceuticals; on the other hand is a growth of
awareness that the body's ills need more healing
rather than treatment, that this comes from
enabling it to heal itself through improvements in
practice of lifestyle, diet, personal values and
beliefs, in effect it is philosophical and
spiritual. The two can work together provided
there is a balance whereby the pharmaceuticals are
not used as a business and the patients become
overmedicated, and that the philoso-spiritual is
exempt form the rigors of science and falls into
quackery. I would think that the Genome project
would also fall into the realm of this growing
dichotomy or split taking place within medicine,
though it would likely side with treatment rather
than healing.

Can philosophy help guide this growing rift
between medical-treatment and healing-practice?
Which is more important: treating the dis-ease of
the body, or treating the dis-ease of the mind and
spirit? In other words, is there a hierarchy
here?

-Ivan

Re DNA Genome Research:

I think we are always at risk of the Law of
Unintended Consequences, and human hubris. The
only experts I trust are the ones who realize how
much we DON'T know.

I also know there is no way to stop the research,
and even the "bad" can be "good"-- there are those
(e.g. Caroline Myss) who posit that the
development of the atom bomb was a critical
inflection point in human consciousness, as the
enormity of it forced us to begin to awaken to our
interdependence. I am just weird enough to think
it would be better and more practical to allow
everyone to have one than to try to enforce police
tactics on those we judge to be "untrustworthy."
(For an example of how to deal with ("bad" things
which cannot be stopped or undone. remember --
what you resist persists.)

Meanwhile as far as I am concerned the only useful
thing to do in a world at the edge of chaos --
where new orders can most easily come into being
-- is keep focused on the light, praying and
working for peace and ... unity.

BTW, the Baha'i writings (somewhere) state that
"love is the vibration that holds the material
universe together." If this is true, aligning with
love is the most powerful force in Creation. It's
also a form of non resistance!

Namaste--

Carroll

BEYOND SPEED OF LIGHT?

Can it be that at the birth of the universe's Big
Bang within the first few seconds, the universe
expanded many times the speed of light? How else
can we understand how within the visible universe
are fully formed galaxies 13 billion light years
away, if the universe is essentially not much
older than this? Or is it truly possible to
travel within the space-time foam of the universe
at velocities many times the speed of light? Or
is the Big Bang and expanding universe no more
than the best Myth we can think of for now? Do we
really know what is black matter, background
radiation, Doppler red shift, weak and strong
gravitational forces, black holes, or that the
speed of light is the ultimate velocity in the
universe? Are we not in the dark over this?

FREE WILL, does it exist?

This is a dialogue as posted on the Examined Life Forum at: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi, in response to the Book by Derrick Farnel: "Free Will Fiction", at: http://www.bitesizebooks.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Posted by Ivan Alexander on 6:27 pm on Aug. 22, 2001

Dear Derrick,

Clever of us humans to think we have a 'Free Will'! If, per your thesis, the universe is designed atomically to act in a totally deterministic manner, so that even the firing of neurons in our brain can theoretically be pre-configured by laws of physics, then how did we come to the illusion of our consciousness of being, the 'who we are', and even to postulate that we have a free will? It would appear to be a given that all these homo-centric ideas of consciousness, personal identity, the 'who I am', and free will, are then no more than the mechanical workings of universal forces that, like a super-infinite-computer, can be 'programmed', at least theoretically, to determine at any moment of time what we will think, decide, or choose to do. Or, as you say in Chapter One: "Living tissue is merely a very special arrangement of the different types of atoms that are the infinitesimal building blocks of the physical world." So it should be simply that: human consciousness is merely an arrangement of physical building blocks... So why am I uncomfortable with this, I wonder?

Maybe it is the 'a very special arrangement' that has me stumped. If life is no more than this special arrangement, then why do we not see evidence of new life forming in today's universal reality? There seems to be no evidence of this, to my knowledge. I can with reason think that life should be forming around me at all times, no? Of course, I can also 'reason' (do I really have any reason to believe I can reason?) that life did form somehow, somewhere in the cosmos, and that it has perpetuated itself through its will to live and adaptability to survive to the present. Interestingly, life can perpetuate itself only through life, through procreation and division or sexual union, and not spontaneously from the atomic arrangements of space and time. Hmmm... What if the 'special arrangement' that created first life was different somehow from what we observe of the universe now? Perhaps that 'special' ingredient that rendered a chain of living species, as it is expressed in each living entity, was present only once, and now there is no more of it. If this is so, then what we observe in the physics of today's universe is then not the same as it once was, I would think. Then, this would be a 'fault' in the thinking you posit, that the 'determinism of physical reality' is responsible for what I think, or think I think, since the same reality that existed when life was born no longer exists. Is this a possible weakness in your thesis that we do not have 'free will', that Life is not merely 'a very special arrangement', but rather is something entirely different?

Now, suppose you are right, that all that happens external of our being determines how the neurons fire in our brain, which we then imagine as being us, our free will. And let us also suppose that the dimensions of this external reality is not a closed system, but rather is open-ended into infinity. If so, then what is being 'predetermined' by this system really has no fixed basis from which to determine what will be the end result of any given either/or proposition, can it? This will be always 'open-ended', to be determined not by a fixed reference of near infinite arrangements, but rather only by the totality as it is infinite, and thus 'undetermined', perhaps even random. So no conclusion can ever be drawn from this arrangement except in how it will interact with itself, how the conditions of all possible arrangements will double back on themselves to yield results. And there are results: forces of energy combine into atoms, which then clump into cosmic dust, which further clump into larger cosmic bodies, stars, planets, living planets, living beings, even conscious beings... Us! But there's the rub: though we think we are conscious, much of what our minds do is in fact beyond the reach of our consciousness. I do not know how my mind makes my heart beat, nor how it will think moments from now, nor how it keeps the life in my body from escaping into space, for example, until I die. Actually, I suspect we tap with our consciousness only at a fraction of what is our mind. Yet, this is the mind that had evolved into my present being. I am a 'who' I am. For better or worse, 'I am a who' which occupies the space in time arrangement that defines for me what is my existence, the reality that surrounds me. Further, this being of mine stretches back through all my lived predecessors, my parents and their parents, etc. to the 'beginning' of life. I am connected at a level that transcends the merely physical, since I am also connected, as defined by my physical being, where and how I am; and by the inherited DNA that describes my physical being, which is connected spatially-timely to a physical existence that is what?... Infinite? So we are back to the 'open ended' universal reality as a determinant of our individual existence, which has 'created' or evolved into a unique individual, one who is conscious of this. Rather impressive for an 'inert reality' to create, I would think. Is this not then another 'fault' in your thesis, that the special arrangement of physical reality is not 'predetermined', but 'undetermined' instead, even random, and infinite? If random, then is there not room for 'free will', since it is no longer 'predetermined'?

More important than this infinite randomness, is that this individual human being can 'choose' to think of this, to actually reason that the reality to which I am connected, and to which my brain's neurons of necessity respond, is so big as to allow me sufficient consciousness to let me make choices. If I live in a probabilistic universe, where either/or presents itself to me at every instant of time, then the reality around me will be influenced by what choices I make. And because of the interconnections both spatially as forces, and physically as things that bump against each other, are minutely connected to me and my choices, then they too become affected by how I choose. I choose, and act, and reality reacts to those choices with either an expected reaction, one which yields results, or one that is unexpected, and fails; another either/or. To this I am then forced to choose again and act, either/or, in what is essentially an interactive reality within which I exist, and survive, and even seek happiness. The Big Question, then, is this: Did this Reality create me, or evolve me, as a conscious being who has a Free Will, or not? Given that infinity cannot be encompassed by a predetermined totality, that it is open ended, then my conclusion must be that it created me with the ability to interact with an element of randomness, with an either/or factor at any moment of time. So 'choice' is a very real thing. Life teaches us, for good or ill, in response to every choice we take, even if that choice is our final one that proves disastrous, and we die. Therefore, though I choose to take that risky step that says that I choose this of my own free will, I would not disallow someone else from choosing that they do not have a free will. In the end, of course, the 'I am', my living tissue, chooses what this infinite universal reality has inherently allowed me to choose my will, that I have a Free Will.

Free Will: It is our choice!

All the best,

Ivan


(Edited by Ivan Alexander at 12:18 am on Aug. 23, 2001)

----------------------------------------------------------------

-- Posted by Derrick on 2:10 pm on Aug. 23, 2001

Dear Ivan

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.

Firstly, if you read through the preceding posts you will see that I have never said that the nature is fundamentally deterministic, and I don't even mention determinism or indeterminism in my book. The point that I have been making all along is that the actual nature of the laws of physics is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we possess free will. We do not possess free will because the activity in our brain is controlled by the laws of physics—whatever their nature—and not the conscious self of the physical brain.

You ask how the conscious self can exist if the activity in the brain is controlled by the laws of physics, but I don't see why not. The point I am making is that the conscious self is not in control of our thoughts and decisions, not that it does not exist. Why can we not have a conscious self just because it does not possess such control? As for our belief in free will - see chapter 2!

I would not, and did not, say that consciousness is nothing more than the physical activity in the brain. All I was saying was that consciousness is a product of that activity, and therefore cannot be independent of it.

You write:

If life is no more than this special arrangement, then why do we not see evidence of new life forming in today's universal reality?

I'm not sure that I know what you mean by 'today's universal reality', but if you mean by this the world around us, then why do you think that what I am saying implies that life should be forming spontaneously out of non-living matter? I would also argue, and I presume that also do, that a computer is made from atoms that can be found in the rest of the physical world, and yet you presumably would not conclude from this that computers should be spontaneously forming around you. As you yourself point-out, a new living thing is a product of reproduction - that is, a new organism develops from a set of genes it inherits from its' parents. But that set of genes is composed of atoms, and the body it instructs the development of is composed of atoms. I have never said anywhere that life forms spontaneously from non-living things, I have only ever made the simple point that living things today are composed of the same atoms as non-living things. Where else does an organism get the raw materials it needs to develop, if not from the non-living world (air, water, minerals etc.)? And if you do not think that life is just a special arrangement of the same atoms that exist in non-living objects, then give me an example of a plant or animal that has been found to be made, or at least partly made, from something other than these atoms.

I read through the rest of your reply with interest, but nothing you write actually contradicts the premises of my argument I put forward in my book, and therefore its conclusion.

Those premises are:

Firstly, the brain is made of the same atoms as are found in non-living objects. (If you have evidence to the contrary, then I advice you to write-up your findings in a paper, send it to Nature, and wait for your Nobel prize.)

Secondly, the motions and interactions of the these atoms, and the subatomic particles, are controlled solely by the laws of physics, whatever their nature.

Thirdly, brain activity is the gross result of this atomic and subatomic activity.

Fourthly, our conscious thoughts and decisions are a product of brain activity.

Fifthly, free will requires that either the conscious self or the physical brain is in control of our thoughts and decisions.

conclusion: We do not possess free will because brain activity, and therefore our thoughts and decisions, is controlled by the laws of physics.

Which premise do you disagree with?


With best wishes

Derrick ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------

-- Posted by WJ on 4:43 pm on Aug. 23, 2001

Hi Derrick!

I certainly don't want to interrupt your debate with Ivan (because I see both sides), but where and how did the laws of physics originate? And do you know or have any ideas about what came before scientific matter?

In other words, I guess scientist's studied these things after they got here, but with these same laws, can they (in theory) create another universe with this knowledge. And if they could, why don't they?

(Analogy:human cloning.)

I really haven't thought this one through, but was curious.

Sincerely,
WJ

---------------------------------------------------------------

-- Posted by Ivan Alexander on 6:02 pm on Aug. 23, 2001

Dear Derrick,

You should note that the title to your original post is: "Free Will and Determinism". If you did not have 'determinism vs. indeterminism' in mind, then does this mean that 'determinism' is misplaced in your title? If I misunderstood, my apology.

The point of my rebuttal to your thesis, that 'we do not have Free Will', is that the activity in our brain is not done in a vacuum. Outside influences are intimately tied into what the brain does. To discount the influences of the outside reality is to place human mental activity in an existential bubble, which I think is unrealistic. We are posed with choices at each moment of life, thus how reality presents itself to us demands that we make these choices. For example, if I am standing on the edge of a high cliff, I have a choice to either step forward or backward. One choice, I live; the other I very likely will die. This is a choice I need to make, of my own free will; and it is a choice I can make. If I were a green leaf instead, then such choice would not exist, since I would be at the mercy of forces beyond my control, i.e., the wind, so whether or not I go off the cliff is up to external forces. This leads to the next proposition, that only conscious beings have the ability of volition, and that the more conscious is a being, the greater the ability of choice this being would have. So, inanimate objects have zero volition; living beings have some ability of motion, so some volition; conscious beings have the greatest volition, thus the greatest ability of making a choice; and consequently the greatest ability of motion (even into space!). If so, then freedom of choice, free will, is available to conscious beings, insofar as the greater the consciousness, the greater the free will. Of course, one can choose to not have free will, and then be like the leaf, totally exposed to the influence of outside forces. In effect, we exist within the context of a universe that exerts influences on us, and from these influences we then make choices, consciously or not. Those that are conscious are made of one's free will, and the more conscious a mind is, the more free will it will be able to exercise.

I think the disagreement between us is that we have different cosmologies: I take the brain's activity within the context of a greater reality; whereas you seem to take the brain's activity as product of its own physical internal workings only. This is a fundamental difference in how we define reality. In the cosmology based on the interconnectivity, interactivity of forces and matter, one that has an interrelated totality as a determinism, then the living beings that inhabit this reality are subject to its construction, right down to the neurons in the brain. On the other hand, a cosmology based only on laws of physics, with no regard for how reality interrelates and interacts with itself, then the brain's activity is seen only in the context of itself, and not in the context of its greater existence. From my point, consciousness is then the product of this interaction between the living being and its reality. No consciousness = no interactivity, since then we are only acted upon. Consciousness = interactivity, and we act in response to the reality around us. That interaction is not predetermined, hence it is capable of randomness, which makes it our choice. That choice, when consciously chosen, I choose to call my Free Will. But this can be done only by a conscious being.

Regarding 'today's reality' no longer forming life, and nor is it forming computers. In fact, you are right, computers do not make themselves, nor do they evolve of their own ability, nor are they alive. There is no comparison between computers and living beings, in my opinion. So, because life has evolved, whereas computers are only our mechanical creations, I fail to see the comparison between the two. If living tissue is merely 'a special arrangement' of atoms, then we should see evidence of life being formed now, which it is not. The point is that living tissue is more than a special arrangement, since it is endowed with life, so that this premise of identity between the two is false. And if it is false, then to base a philosophy where non-living matter is equated with living matter fails, even if both are made up of atoms. This harks back to the ojectivist/subjectivist arguments, where the two are equally not equal. Humans are subjects, they are 'whos'; whereas computers are objects, they are 'whats'.

Are we, our brain, our thoughts and decisions, merely controlled by 'laws of physics'? No, not if we are conscious beings. Unconscious things are subject to the laws of physics; conscious beings are subject to laws of physics plus... It's the 'plus' that I alluded to in my post, since this is that part of our existence that connects us spatially to all of the reality within which we exist, and in terms of the life-time connection that takes each one of us alive back to the ancestry of when life first came into being. On the spatial side, because our interconnections in reality are infinite, there is a mystery which defies easy definition; on the time line, we do not know, nor can we duplicate, what is life, which is also a mystery. Because they are a mystery, then we cannot make the facile statement that we are merely a result of the laws of physics. I feel that this conclusion is not entirely truthful, at least not to me, and I am forced to conclude that the conditions that drive my brain, my thoughts, and my choices, my will, are beyond the realm of an purely objective reality; I am more than the laws of physics. I maintain that as a subjective being, I am more in the realm of the mysterious, the infinite, and the interconnectedness of the reality within which I live; all of which allow me, even empower me, to choose. I do not choose with a brain which is compared to a computer, which is devoid of 'whoness'. Rather, I choose in terms of a unique 'who I am'. And for me, who I am is my Free Will.

So, of your five premises, which one do I disagree with? Well, since we seem to come from totally different cosmologies, I must conclude that I disagree with items 1 thru 4, since we have a different way of understanding what is the origin of our brain's consciousness. But I do agree with item 5 that free will is a result of my conscious self; however, not that free will is a product only of the physical brain. Alas.

I hope this helps you better see my position, as I truthfully see it. Of course, that is only my position, and I would not argue against someone else choosing to see it from your point of view. I think that Free Will is a matter of choice, our choice. Then again, can it be that your and my philosophies have different definitions of what is 'free will'? I wonder...

Take care, thanks for your comments,

Ivan

Ps: Hi WJ, interesting questions.

* * *
Addendum, 8/24/01:

Of course, Derrick, I totally agree with you (of my own free will?) that computers, calculating machines, AI, even single cells within tissue of living bodies, that these do not have an independent free will. This may even extend to bacteria and other very small life forms, though we do not know with certainty that this is so, since each 'choice' made by living things may have an independent free will, even if this is negligible. After all, what bacteria would not jump for a carcass versus a living tissue? Free choice? The point being is that the philosophy of Free Will Fiction is correct as it is posited, and well thought out, but it applies only for either mechanical 'beings', or extremely simple life forms that approximate the laws of physics. Cloning, anyone?

Thanks again, Ivan


(Edited by Ivan Alexander at 8:53 am on Aug. 24, 2001)

------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Posted by Derrick on 1:27 am on Aug. 24, 2001

Dear WJ

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.

The question of where and how the laws of physics originated, and what came before matter, is way above my head! I believe that physicists are working on the theory that all the difference fundamental forces of physics were originally in the form of one 'superforce' that existed briefly after the big bang. Try 'Superforce' by Paul Davies (Penguin). You might want to also try posting your question in the physics forum and see if anyone can help you there.

Such ignorance on my part is not a problem for my argument (before you all jump on me) because my argument merely rests on the assumption that the fundamental forces of nature do exist today and control the activity in your brain.

Universe cloning!? And they think animal cloning is controversial…!! Again, I'm as clueless as you on this. I do believe that that there is a theory coming out of quantum theory that there exists an infinite number of parallel universes, and that this theory is actually considered quite respectable these days. I advise you to find some good popular science books and also try the physics forum.

With best wishes

Derrick ;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Posted by WJ on 9:22 am on Aug. 24, 2001

Hi Derrick/Ivan!

...thanks, no problem. I'm just enjoying reading both you-alls discussion.

It's wierd, I often times have this chicken or egg creationist-fascination running thru my head when I look at certain, what I'll call, existential type problems. To that end, I was thinking about how we humans often study a subject, figure out how it works, then proceed to replicate its existence. What's even more profound, is our ability to theorize about something, then create its existence through invention.

If I think of anything that could shed any further light on the specific problem, I'll certainly post it.

Carry on gentlemen.

Sincerely,
WJ

Digital versus Analog Knowledge:

Can there be a difference in how the mind works? We seem to learn digitally, one piece of information atop another, strung along until it makes sense. But we seem to recall analogously, a whole image or thought comes together, to be taken apart digitally with difficulty. Remember how you learned to read? One letter, syllable, word at a time. Then when you knew how to read, you could take in a whole sentence at a glance, even several lines, and it all made sense. That is analog. The letter at a time is digital. So, how do we learn? Digitally. How do we know? Analog!

ROBERT REDFORD ON ENERGY SECURITY

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Redford" <biogemsnews@savebiogems.org>
To: <quantum@rockies.net>
Sent: October 29, 2001 8:53 PM
Subject: Message from Robert Redford on energy security

Dear Friend,

It is understandable that we Americans feel an almost reflexive need for unanimity in trying times like these. As a nation, we are rightly consumed with responding to the terrorist attacks on September 11th. But, at some point -- and I think we're beginning to get there -- we need to take a long-term view even as we are reacting to the current crisis. Really important domestic issues facing us before all of this happened -- education, energy and the environment, health care -- still have the same dimension and consequence. But we have to recognize that it's much more difficult to discuss and debate them in the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Unfortunately, disagreement is sometimes characterized as unpatriotic during times such as these and open, thoughtful discourse is somewhat muted. The gravity of the current situation is not lost on any of us and we all want to do what's right to insure our national security. It is with this in mind that I felt compelled to write you today.

A handful of determined U.S. senators, encouraged by the White House, are arguing that national security requires the Senate to rush a pro-oil energy bill into law. They have vowed to hold up normal Senate business and attach the bill to every piece of legislation that comes to the Senate floor. So far they have failed in what The Boston Globe is calling "oil opportunism." But with President Bush, himself, now calling for rushed passage of this disastrous bill, intense pressure is building on Senate leaders to succumb to the emotions of the moment. Using our national tragedy as an opportunity to advance the narrow interests of the oil lobby would not be in the best interest of the public. This bill, already passed by the House, would not only open the Arctic Refuge to oil rigs, it would also pave the way for energy companies to exploit and destroy pristine areas of Greater Yellowstone and other gems of our natural heritage. As important, it would do nothing to address energy security.

I'm asking for your immediate help in stopping this legislation. After reading my letter I hope you'll take action at http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/index.asp?src=ab0110a and then
forward this letter to your friends and colleagues.

Last spring, the Bush administration and some members of Congress said we had to pass the president's oil-friendly energy bill because we were facing the most serious energy crisis since 1973. But here we are, a mere six months later, and the energy crisis has vanished. Due to a slowing economy and falling demand, the prices for gasoline, natural gas and home heating oil have plunged. Meanwhile, the much-feared "summer of blackouts" in California never happened, largely because consumers and businesses made dramatic cuts in energy use by launching the most successful statewide conservation campaign in history.

With no energy crisis to scare us with, the administration and pro-oil
senators are now promoting their "Drill the Arctic" plan under the guise of national security and energy independence. Don't buy it. It would take ten years to bring Arctic oil to market, and when it arrives it would never equal more than two percent -- a mere drop in the bucket -- of all the oil we consume each year. Our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to drill our way to energy independence or even to affect world oil prices.

We possess a mere 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but we consume fully 25 percent of the world's oil supply. We could drill the Arctic Refuge, Greater Yellowstone, and every other wildland in America and we'd still be importing oil, still be paying worldwide prices for domestic oil, and still be vulnerable to wild gyrations in price and supply. As The Atlanta Constitution put it: "Burning through our tiny oil supply faster will not make our country more secure." I'd go further: increasing our dependence on oil, whether that oil comes from the Persian Gulf or the Arctic Refuge, practically guarantees national *insecurity*. And we know that it will bring more habitat destruction, more oil spills, more air pollution, and more global warming. The public health implications will be devastating.

If our nation wants to declare energy independence, then we have no choice but to reduce our appetite for oil. There's no other way. We need to rely on smarter and cleaner ways to power our economy. We have he technology right now to increase fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon. If we phased in that standard by 2012 we'd save 15 times more oil than the Arctic Refuge is likely to produce over 50 years. We could also give tax rebates for existing hybrid gas-electric vehicles that get as much as 60 mpg. We could invest in public ransit. We could launch an "Apollo Project" to bring fuel cells and hydrogen fuel down to earth, allowing us to begin the mass production of vehicles that emit only water as a by-product. The list goes on and on.

In this climate of national trauma and war, it is up to us -- the people -- to ensure that reason prevails and our natural heritage survives intact. The preservation of irreplaceable wildlands like the Arctic Refuge and Greater Yellowstone is a core American value. I have never been more appreciative of the wisdom of that value than during these past few weeks. When we are filled with grief and unanswerable questions it is often nature that we turn to for refuge and comfort. In the sanctuary of a forest or the vastness of the desert or the silence of a grassland, we can touch a timeless force larger than ourselves and our all-too-human problems. This is where the healing begins. Those who would sell out this natural heritage -- this spiritual heritage -- would destroy a wellspring of American strength. What's worse, their rush to exploit the wildness that feeds our souls won't do a thing to solve our energy problems.

There are plenty of sensible and patriotic ways to guarantee our nation's energy security, but destroying the Arctic Refuge is not one of them. Please tell that to your senators. They urgently need to hear it because the pressure is on to move this pro-oil bill to a vote in the next few weeks. It will take you only a minute to send them an electronic message from NRDC's SaveBioGems website.

Go to http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/index.asp?src=ab0110a

And please forward this message to your family and friends. Millions of Americans need to know about this cynical attempt to promote the interests of energy companies at the expense of everyone else.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Redford

=====


BioGems: Saving Endangered Wild Places

A project of the Natural Resources Defense Council

http://www.savebiogems.org

ABOVE TOP SECRET, engineering report?

See: http://www.disclosureproject.org/science_article1.htm for a synopsis of UFOs by H.E. Puthoff
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, Texas, USA.

The Disclosure Project for Unconventional Flying Objects (UFOs) as posted in the Disclosure Project: http://www.disclosureproject.org

SCIENCE VS. PHILOSOPHY

If I were to coin a phrase as regarding science, I would call it the study of the infinitesimal.  By the same token, I would call philosophy the study of the infinite.

Science dissects, tries to measure and verify and break things down to their smallest possible components, before formulating theory.  Philosophy, on the other hand, works with systems that construct greater and greater models to encompass all the knowns, so ultimately the theory is to encompass infinity.  So science is the handmaiden of philosophy, since it is her duty to verify what philosophers constructed; but philosophy is then the servant of science, since it is the experiential and empirical that dictates what material philosophy can work with.

Thus, I posit that neither science nor philosophy can exist on their own, but rather are symbiotic, and so are forced to work together into a whole... but the whole is philosophy!

Is this not so?

DO ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS?

Okay, let's fast-forward hundreds of years into the future where Earth's human population now has a social awareness sufficiently heightened to be consciously aware of when things are not being done by 'agreement', and a world where doing things by 'coercion' is universally odious to them. So people no longer consciously choose to oppress or abuse one another, and are mindful of when this happens to quickly correct a wrong. I know, this is so futuristic as to be deemed almost impossible, but this questions does have its applications in the world of today.

Now, in that same society, there are still individuals who feel that this kind of social mindfulness does not apply to anything or anyone except to 'highly aware' human beings. Their reasoning is that the rule and ethics of agreement apply only to the higher reasoning and aware beings, and not to lesser life forms. In fact, they are actually offended that such importance is attached to what they term "nonconscious" beings, namely animals and the mentally handicapped. So, by their reasoning, experimenting on them is perfectly 'Ethical'.

The question that comes up naturally is this: Do lesser life forms, less developed human beings, mentally handicapped, children or adults, have the same 'human rights' to not be coerced and protected from abuse, as all other human beings? For example, animals used for testing commercial and industrial products, where they will suffer pain and possibly die; or animals or mentally challenged people used in laboratory testing, for science; are they to be protected, since they are obviously being forced against their 'agreement', but are not conscious of it? Or should society come to a general consensus, a 'social agreement', about what constitutes the rights of others, animal or human, who are not conscious of their rights? How does society protect such rights? So, if we fast-forward hundreds of years and encounter a society based on a principle of agreement rather than coercion, what will we find? Will animals, and all humans, have rights?

Or, more specifically to our present world, do 'animals' have rights today? And if so, then by what logical or reasonable argument can this be? And who is to ensure these rights? Who should protect lesser creatures from commercial, scientific, or mindless abuse?

As for me, I can't even stand to watch circus animals being used for entertainment. I remember seeing elephants chained up while waiting to put up the big top. The mother elephant picked up a hose with running water and took a drink, then she "trunked" it over to the baby elephant who was too far away to reach it. Who are we to say whether an animal is aware or not? How do we know that because they don't speak in languages we understand that they don't speak at all? All my life I have watched animals and I've seen everything from cats with a sense of humor to dogs with compassion. And I'm not anthropomorphizing them; merely applying my well developed sense of empathy. I think that human beings who can't see that all creatures have rights, regardless of their human-defined intelligence, are sadly lacking in something far more important. http://www.llumina.com

Dear Deborah,

Thank you and welcome!

I too feel for our little brethren, especially when they are held captive by humans. Though, handled right, I also suspect they rather enjoy our company and will do almost anything to please us. Theirs is a simple world more heartfelt than reasoned, which in some ways makes them superior to us who have gotten too much into our minds. Still, being human, we need reason, which is why I asked the question: Do animals have rights? And since we have the power to make their lives either pleasant or painful, it is a question that needs asking. The animal intelligence is not inferior, only different from ours. I could never hope to know how to be them, same as they may not be able to be us. But to my reason, they have a right to be who they are, even when this is inconvenient for us, most certainly in the wild, but even within the influence of their human companions. Do animals have these rights to happiness? I believe the choice is ours. And in how we choose to protect their rights then becomes a signature of 'who' we are.

All the best, Ivan

Ps: Good luck with your book!

SPINOR MOTION?

Hi G-man, Claude, and All,

Interesting ideas on spinor motion. Below are a couple of reference links to research papers, a bit over my head.

So I'm not well versed in this, but some ideas come to mind which may be of interest, as it applies to perpetual motion. Can it be that rotational motion is a function of the body itself? One possibility is that spin is due to vector forces that are generated by a globe's curvature (as referred to Berry's geometry below). But of greater interest is the possibility that rotational motion is induced by the motion dynamics within a physical body itself. By this I mean that the fluid dynamics within a planet, like Earth, affects rotation, in the same way an ice skater can induce spin by closing his arms towards the axis of his body. I know this works, because in my younger days in New England, where ice was more plentiful then So. California, we would amuse ourselves on the ice by spinning, when not playing gorilla tag.

The principle at work here would be that the convection currents of the molten magma within the planet, or the convection currents within the sun's interior, would act in the same way the skater's arms drawn to himself increase the spin. If so, and I have no scientific evidence this is so, then the body's rotational motion becomes a function not of its atomic construction, as some suppose, but rather a function of the heat generated by the body's radioactive decay generated heat. Now, this would point to dead bodies which have no molten interior, like the moon or Mercury, then would not experience the same spin syndrome experienced by those with molten interiors, since they then come under the domination of the larger bodies to which they are attached. And if this is true, then very large bodies, like Jupiter and Saturn, would then experience greater spin, especially if the convections within those planets should be more active than planets with cooler interiors, like Earth or Mars.

Why should this be so? Only a guess, but the lighter mass of warm magma would act differently from the heavier mass of cooler magma, so that the two would have different reactions to both gravitational forces, and in reaction to centrifugal spin. This might mean, and I am really reaching here, that the predominant flow of mass is up the axis to the poles and then down the planet's curvature towards the equator, and then sink back into the interior. This may not happen in unison, but in numerous pockets of convection instead, though the aggregate of these pockets of convection would have the same net effect as if it were in total mass. Now think what this would mean! If this is what actually happens, verified by geophysical studies of the planet's interior, then the convections of magma would be approximating the skater's motion of pulling his arms from the extremity towards the center. The planet's or star's interior recycling its interior, in such a way that the radioactive generated heat is constantly being redistributed inside the globe, then generates a flow of mass from the extremety to the center. And what happens? Spin.

Now, and here is the test, if the opposite happens, that the predominant flow is not up the polar axis and down the equator, but the other way instead, then this would be a contradiction and all bets are off; and my idea of PM spinor motion is quickly filed into the trash basket!


Spinor Approach to Gravitational Motion and Precession
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/Spin&grv.pdf

Berry's geometric phase
http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html

Hope you enjoyed this fanciful mental exercise on SM and PM.

Take care, ciao, always fun,

Ivan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(As posted on the Examined Life Forum: http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/ , in response to below)

By G-man767 on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 10:47 pm:
Claude: Some reference sites would be welcomed. But rather than exploring the literature background of Spinor Dynamics, which tend to involve Bigger Picture concepts (i.e. galactic behaviors, etc...), let's just apply some fresh imagination here, and examine the dynamics of spin itself. If we imagine a solitary spinning sphere (orbital or not relative to a larger body), we can see that the sphere itself consists of many interesting aspects. It has a surface, two poles, an axis, and an (absolute?) center. If, for a moment, we set aside such force factors, such as energy, mass, gravity, velocity..., and simply visualize spin itself, it alone basically provides all the needed facts for 3-D spatiality, plus an added factor of directional motion. (Also, here, I've excluded the observer as a factor.) My point in going here involves questions of identity and measurement. In such a dynamic scene, is such sphere ever truly self-identical? If so, relational to what...its absolute center? What, if anything, about a constantly spinning sphere, is unchanging and fixed?:) G-man

By Claude on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 12:56 am:
G-man,

At some point for the sake of logic, I think it imperative that at any point in the life of an object in the universe, we must consider it as positively identifiably, in that the attributes of it alone should be adequate for such identification. If we cannot do that, then identity is a worthless concept without any validity whatsoever, which means, that everything is but a mental game played by people to serve their own purpose. To some extent that is what happened to early QM, and it has taken 75 years to overcome many misconceived notions concerning it, and the application of it. I think QM plays a vital role in particles, and their behavior; however, one must never forget that particles seldom wander about totally free, in that particles in free states seldom have much influence on an individual object. That is why I stated earlier that Schrodingers’ Cat is always dead. The bottom line concerning motion, all motion is, the atrophy caused by it; however, atrophy is not all bad, and we benefit from it daily here on earth. Just think, if the Sun quit burning it would not take long for all life to cease on earth . . . So, can you explain why atrophy is bad? I cannot.

You asked,

G-man wrote: “What, if anything, about a constantly spinning sphere, is unchanging and fixed?”

What has changed on earth during the past 10,000 years? I think a picture taken 8000bc of the earth’s surface would not be much different than it is today. So, all things are relative to an observer, but without an observer present no changes can be discerned; therefore, in that respect, time does not, and cannot exist; therefore, all changes that we humans observe are based on Time for we are observers, but if no observers were present the earth would always be the same as it “is”. This is why Time is a serious problem for everyone involved with calculations if involving space, objects in the universe, and motion. Motion, and everything in the universe is pure analog in functionality, but everything we humans try with calculations is purely digital; therefore, because we know that our digital system always breaks down at specific points in calculations, 95% of all scientific calculations are nothing but an educated guess, and the other 5% is pure luck. It is estimated that of all science we have recorded, less than 1% of it is accurate enough to say, it is true.

At what point common sense? I think common sense says, I can measure the spin of that object, and locate it in the dimension of space. That object is Mars, and will be Mars, just as it always has been Mars since it first developed in our solar system. One thing for sure, Mars consists of uncountable atoms, leptons, and quarks, but I don’t think the spin characteristics of each individual particle in Mars makes much difference in the longevity of it over the long haul of its existence. If such information can benefit biology, it should help us understand why we are human, but if not, I think science needs to reevaluate its priorities.

Claude

Above Speed of Light, reference:

"Interestingly the speed of light can be surpassed by several available technologies, and various patents have been issued. The latest tests proved electrical impulses have been driven at 3x C consistently. An abstract provides details.

A Haché and L Poirier 2002 Appl. Phys. Lett. 80 518
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/13

Claude"

(as posted on the Examined Life Discussion Forum)

JURISPRUDENCE


Habeas Corpses


What are the rights of dead people?


By Dahlia Lithwick

Posted Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 2:45 PM PT


A French court

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1870000/1870301.stm

> ruled this week that the refrigerated bodies of a married couple

must be removed from basement storage in their château and buried

properly. Against the couple's final wishes, and over the strenuous

legal objections of their son, the court held that Raymond Martinot—who

died last month at age 80—and his wife, Monique—preserved in a

refrigerated container since 1984—must be cremated or buried. On this

side of the Atlantic, more arrests were made

<http://www.msnbc.com/local/ctfp/ctfp1987522.asp> this week in the

Tri-State Crematory scandal. Crematory operator Ray Brent Marsh faces

174 state counts of theft by deception for accepting money for

cremations he never performed and handing out fake remains to the

families. Authorities have found 339 bodies

<http://safetynet.gema.state.ga.us/GEMAWEB/piocommon.nsf/pages/Walker>

scattered and hidden on the Marsh family property. Federal legislators

have begun to call for federal oversight of the funeral industry.


Why do we care what happens to dead bodies? Does it really matter

whether corpses are cremated, buried, or tucked away in freezer chests?

Nobody "owns" a dead body in any legal sense, and there isn't enough

space on the planet to ensure that a single corpse can rest undisturbed

for all eternity. By any utilitarian or rational calculus, the dead

aren't using their bodies anyhow.


Two mains areas of the law apply to dead people: 1) disposal of bodies;

and 2) crimes committed against dead bodies. In both cases, the laws are

a tangle of competing rights, often pitting the wishes of the deceased

against the wishes of their survivors against the police powers of the

state. The disputes range from battles over the harvesting of sperm from

a corpse to whether sex with a dead body is rape. (In most states it

isn't, unless you thought the body was alive while you did it.) (The

law's like that.)


1. The Rights of the Living Dead

The dead themselves have limited legal rights. Chief among them is the

right to remain silent. From the time of the ancient Egyptians, the

conviction has been that corpses have the right to rest undisturbed and

unmolested. William Henry Francis Basevi, in his 1920 book The Burial of

the Dead, wrote that across history, cultures with almost no other

rituals in common treat their dead with reverence. "In or near the grave

are placed food, clothes, and weapons; while the body is protected from

molestation often most elaborately. All this provision conveys the idea

that there is something more in burial than the disposal of a dead man's

bones."


The respect for corpses is so rooted that we even agree to deal gently

with the bodies of our enemies. International rules about the treatment

of the battlefield dead date back centuries. Witness Shakespeare's Henry

V, in which a French herald pleads with King Henry: "I come to thee for

charitable license/ That we may wander o'er this bloody field/ To book

our dead, and then to bury them." The 1949 Geneva Conventions explicitly

provide that prevailing forces must "search for the [enemy's] dead and

prevent their being despoiled." The conventions further require that

enemy "dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites

of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected,

grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased,

properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found."

Violators have been convicted and imprisoned.


The right of the dead to rest quietly is not merely spiritual or

historical. It was given consensus voice, only last week, by the French

government's advocate in the Martinot case. Christian Prioux

rhetorically asked of the court: "What kind of peaceful resting place

can a fridge be, when you can just go downstairs and take a peek any

time you want?" Although the deceased in this case evidently wanted to

be peeked at, Prioux maintained that the dead sometimes deserve more

respect than they ask for themselves.


2. Habeas Corpses: The Rights of Survivors

The deceased have fewer rights controlling the how and where of their

burial. Often a will's burial specifications are not probated until long

after the funeral. Survivors' wishes can trump those of the dead,

regarding not only the burial but also preparation of the body. Even

though the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act—which regulates organ

donation—theoretically follows the wishes of the deceased, the family

gets the last word in practice. Even if the deceased filled out a valid

organ donor card, hospitals won't fight families who object to the

harvesting of organs. The fear of litigation, when only one party is

alive to confer with their attorney, tends to override the need for that

kidney.


In general, the legal rights of the next of kin include: the right to

immediately posses the remains for burial, the right to oppose

disinterment, the right to oppose autopsy or organ donation, and the

right to seek damages for mutilation of the body. Who counts as next of

kin? As a general matter, both common law and state statutes give first

preference to spouses in determining what will happen to the deceased.

If there is no spouse, decision-making authority goes by the same

consanguinity rules that apply to inheritance. Legal disputes have

arisen where same-sex partners or unmarried lovers are excluded from

these decisions.


3. The Remains of the Dead: The Rights of the State

The state's interest limits what survivors can do with the remains of

the deceased or what the deceased can demand. Recording deaths,

regulating the death business, and protecting corpses from abuse are all

government functions, for reasons ranging from health and hygiene to

crime control to fraud prevention.


Why can't you cryogenically freeze your grandma? Well, in some states

you can. But you don't get do as you please with your dead because a

very long legal tradition rejects the notion that family members own the

remains of their loved ones. This rule stems from the 17th-century

British belief that human souls have the right to reclaim their bodies

on Resurrection Day, therefore they can't transfer those rights to their

descendants. American courts still refuse to find a property right in

the body of the deceased, and so crimes against dead bodies are treated

leniently for the most part. The Model Penal Code provision concerning

abuse of a corpse only makes it a misdemeanor, explaining, "[G]reater

penalties seem plainly excessive in light of the fact that the harm

involved is only outrage to sensibility." In other words, the law

permits survivors to recover for emotional damage and trauma but not for

damage to the dead as their property.


Partly in response to Jessica Mitford's muckraking in The American Way

of Death

<http://bn.bfast.com/booklink/click?sourceid=1381393&ISBN=0679771867> ,

the Federal Trade Commission enacted regulations

<http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/services/funeral.htm> to prevent

blatant fraud in the funeral industry. But because state criminal laws

don't treat the abuse of dead bodies as a property crime, as in

Georgia's Tri-State case, whole areas of corpse malfeasance are not

criminalized at all: Marsh has been charged only with fraud because

failure to cremate isn't a crime in Georgia. Some states provide for

oversight and inspection of cemeteries and funeral homes, some don't.

Different states have wildly divergent regulations about the scattering

of ashes, the legality of cryogenic freezing, and the permissibility of

stacking corpses, to name just a few. Some states prohibit abuse of the

corpse, some criminalize mutilation of the corpse, some states expressly

outlaw necrophilia, but there is no consistent and coherent body of law

pertaining to bodies.


Families whose loved ones have been recovered in Georgia describe the

violation and horror of fraudulent cremations (and the discovery that

they have an urn full of burnt wood chips on their mantle) as worse than

a second death. Even if it's true that these survivors are suffering

from nothing worse than a lack of closure, and even if the dead don't

much care anymore, one measure of any civilized society is how they

treat their dead. In Sophocles' Antigone, the title character defies the

king and gives her brother a decent burial because it's a right

ultimately protected, as she says, "by the gods." Antigone understood,

and we should too, that you should always be nice to dead people. After

all, the next dead person you meet might just be yourself.

Since the dead are unable to file their own legal complaints, it's nice to know that their survivors (and their family lawyers) can act as 'surrogates.' Which reminds me, I've always wondered: what did Jesus mean when he said, "Let the dead bury the dead"? G-man

Suggestions for this Thread: I've reviewed every single post herein. Many (not all) would be better placed in their own specific topic. The format used here cannot do justice to many of the very interesting, provocative ideas presented. So, for all that have posted herein, please consider re-posting your topic under a specific heading. G-man

GRAVITY

Gravity ain't what it used to be, a constant.

Tuesday, 15 May, 2001, 15:46 GMT 16:46 UK
Mystery force tugs distant probes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1332000/1332368.stm


Monday, 18 March, 2002, 10:43 GMT
Tom and Jerry on weighty mission
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1878000/1878353.stm

SHORT TERM GAIN VS LONG TERM LOSS?

"Nature pays biggest dividends"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2179291.stm