JDR_1293.ZIP John David Rohner, Milwaukee, WI December 1993 CONTENTS Line Topic 컴컴 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� 49 LIFE 51 EVOLUTION 67 In The Beginning 638 Dinosaurs 725 Responsibility 747 Death 1037 Xenophobia 1103 Homo Sapiens: The Next Generation 1428 EXTRATERRESTRIALS 1492 Some interesting races 1690 Contact 1741 Long Life 1832 Master Mind 1890 In The End 1920 THE BRAIN AND THE BODY 1923 Misc. 2658 Rules 2691 Dianetics 3380 Self Improvement 3484 The MultiTasking Brain 3704 ThoughtProcess 3770 ThoughtSpeech 3784 Minsky Knows 4011 ROBOTS AND ARTIFICIAL BEINGS 4174 The human soul 4228 GENETICS 4375 HUMAN PHILOSOPHY 4378 Division 4418 Our criminal self 4543 Beliefs 4609 Drugs 4701 Education 4796 Weakness 4818 Politics 4860 Anatomy of a Movement 4897 The Law 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� LIFE EVOLUTION [Clarke quoting Pascal] There may or may not be a God; I may or may not believe in Him. The only way I can lose is if there is a God and I do not believe in HIm. Therefore I shall believe in Him to minimize my downside risk.[117] If the new dating methods hold up, it appears that much of what we thought of the development of humans may be different. Instead of simply sweeping away the old versions, new versions were living with the old versions for thousands of years. That the take over by new versions was slow. It also suggests that the speed and movement of primative humans was much greater, and much older, than thought. When something new was invented/etc. it spread relatively rapidly throughout the whole old-world. In The God by definition does not exist. Omniscience; the knowing Beginning of everything in the universe in the past, present and future, and omnipotence; the ability to do anything and everything, rule them out, especially if you want Free Will. Higher evolved beings do exist (for example, us). What type of race those higher than us are will decide how they treat us (benevolence, slavery, leave alone, etc.). Humans mistakenly pray to gods in hope that one of these higher evolved beings will hear their call, impressed by such reverence will constantly store their current body data so that they may be recreated should they die here on Earth. (See section on transportation beams for problem information.) A distinct lack of self confidence in one's own race is necessary to believe this stuff. Without the right technology, unknowns scare a species, death being the biggest unknown - add to this a desire to both obtain and legitimize power and these things catch on. We have the technology to change and evolve ourselves, we must do so. In the future evolution will prove to be too slow to advance the human race. Some thought should be given to what to change into and what other races have chosen to evolve into. Once we know what to expect, we can locate other races. Once a race evolves beyond the need for organic matter it will appear that the race has died out, it will look like it was only a flash-in-the-pan and that there are fewer races in the universe than there really are. ...think of how many gods--and with what variety of nature, appearance and ability--have been invented by human beings who had never seen one, but wanted one desperately just the same. --ISAAC ASIMOV Robots and Aliens Book 4, p xiii . . .For no powerful God would need miracles. He would set everything up properly in the beginning, and by virtue of His omnipotence He would have no need for stage tricks.[5] 23 [They] debated what they thought God was: an abstract 23 construct of the sentient, questing mind...a unifying 23 principle of cosmology...or a silent and invisible 23 creator...[147] If you desire a god to worship, use Brian Herbert's definition: "The Leader of the Universe."[6] The only way to know the power of any being--including those claiming godhood--is to switch places with them. Space can apparently form complex molecules - some of which lead to life. These building blocks of life land on planets, trying to fashion life under the conditions given.[7] The recipe for [life] is simple: Take a flask of methane gas, add water vapor, nitrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, perhaps a pinch of sulfur, a hunk of clay, liquid water-- all thought to have been abundant on the primitive earth- -and stir with lightning, or ultraviolet light. The result is a brownish sludge, full of organic compounds often including amino acids--the building blocks of proteins. Nature has spread organic molecules through comets, the clouds of Titan, Jupiter, and Saturn, the frosty dust clouds of space, and earth itself. Life began on earth, biologists think, when the first self- replicating strand of DNA formed out of those materials in the primordial soup. [When] the earth was a billion years old, blue-green algae were already flourishing, and scientists believe that it and all the forms of life that followed descended from that first DNA molecule.[42] We are animals. Animals are life. Life is the ability to think for yourself (plants are biological machines). We started out as little rat-like creatures during the dinosaur age. We then grew to be chimpanzee-like. Resulting finally in our present form. Ants, at least, are biological machines. Working from instinct with no self-determination/self-thought.[8] DNA structure matching will eventually show the whole tree of life on earth. For now, a chimp's DNA matches to 98.4% of that of the human (a gorilla matches 97.9% to a human).[9] It looks like evolution of major lines such as humans occur in spurts (punctuated equilibrium) and minor changes slowly (gradualism). We, for the most part, evolved in eastern Africa. Starting sometime between 6 and 10 million years ago we see the appearance of two groups who evolved from chimps: apes and upright hominid's--little more than monkeys who regularly walked upright. Around 3 million years ago, the lineage splits into Australopithecus robustus and Australopithecus africanus. A. robustus died off about 1.2 million years ago. Around 2 million years ago A. africanus became Homo habilis, the first real humans. Around 1.7 million years ago H. habilis became H. erectus, who, around 1 million years ago, left Africa and spread through most of the Old World (Europe, Asia, Africa), as did their descendants. Those descendants appeared around 500,000 years ago with the arrival of Homo sapiens. These last (H. habilis to H. sapiens) was straight evolution of a single species. Around 130,000 years ago modern Homo sapiens appears and so did Neanderthal. Neanderthal died out about 32,000 years ago. This is too bad, as they were interesting people. In many ways more advanced than the Homo sapiens of the time, they used fire regularly and took care of their old and infirm. Current thought is that they did not evolve technologically like Homo sapiens had. No innovation, for their entire period they always used the same type of stone tools everywhere. They also did not live to be very old (not beyond 45). Homo sapiens evolved better weapons and boats during this period. Also about 35,000 years modern humans appear (Cro-Magnon/Homo sapiens sapiens). It also thought that Neanderthal were impaired by a form of muteness--they could not articulate their sounds enough to distinguish them to form/learn a language (vocal tract problem, for instance chimps are known to have trouble forming most of the commonest vowels). Neanderthal was not stupid though, they had a brain case 10% larger than ours.[10] Teach a rat to run an obstacle course and there will be a jump in the number of communication links between cells in the cerebellum, a part of the brain that coordinates movement. That's been fairly easy to prove; researchers just count the links and compare them with the number of links in rats that haven't had to meet this challenge. But is has been much harder to figure out whether it's the physical activity or the mental gymnastics--learning the course--that triggers this increase. Neuroscientist William Greenough taught a group of rats to negotiate an elevated obstacle course of balance beams, seesaws, and rope bridges. At first the rats hesitated, but after a month of training and the proper reward ('Rats love chocolate,' Greenough says) they scampered eagerly over pencil-wide dowels and loosely suspended ropes and chains, no matter how the course was rearranged. These acrobatic rats got little aerobic exercise, however, compared with another group of rodents that ran in an exercise wheel every day. These long-distance runners covered an average of 12 miles during their monthlong workout. A third group spent a month trotting on a treadmill, covering seven miles on average. A final group of animals lounged in a cage without obstacle courses, exercise wheels, or any other chance to learn or get in shape. The researchers then examined slices of brain tissue from each rat. The acrobatic animals, it turned out, had more connections between cells in the cerebellum than did animals in any of the other groups. But the rats that did monotonous, vigorous exercise didn't lose out completely; they had the highest density of brain blood vessels. With a lot of exercise, Greenough says, their brain cells fired messages more frequently across existing cell connections, and blood vessels grew to bring the links and cells added nourishment. 'With exercise, you can change blood-vessel density,' says Greenough. 'You are changing the brain so that it is more capable of doing the task. But new connections only form when the animals learn new behavioral skills.'[11] In 1987 biochemists at Berkeley declared that they had traced the genetic ancestry of all living people back to a single woman who had lived in Africa some 200,000 years ago. This...announcement was based on a comparison of the DNA found inside the mitochondria--rodlike structures within the cell--of 147 women from various racial and geographic backgrounds. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from one's mother, so any changes from one generation to the next are caused by random mutations, rather than by a mixing of genes from both parents. The Berkeley team claimed...that such mutations accumulate throughout the millennia at a steady rate and can be used as a molecular "clock." By identifying the number of mutations that separated several populations and then using the clock to figure out how many years it would have taken for those mutations that separated several populations and then using the clock to figure out how many years it would have taken for those mutations to occur, the researchers pinned a date on our last common maternal ancestor. And, they reasoned, the population with the most DNA diversity--the Africans--must be the oldest. 'Adam was an African Pygmy,' declares evolutionary geneticist G굍ard Lucotte of the coll둮e de France in Paris. 'Not maybe a Pygmy, not probably a Pygmy. He was definitely a Pygmy.' Lucotte's lab is one of several around the world using the male Y chromosome as a lever to dig out information on human origins. Most of the Y chromosome is passed intact from father to son (a small section of it does exchange genetic material with the female X chromosome, but Lucotte excludes this section from his analysis). Just as the changes in mitochondrial DNA led back to Eve, mutations on the Y chromosome can, in theory, provide a route leading back to a common paternal ancestor--not Eve's actual mate, but a male who probably lived about the same time. In 1985 Lucotte and his colleagues were able to sort a sample of 50 Parisian men into 16 characteristic Y chromosome types. Using a computer algorithm that seeks out the 'master' type from which all the others could have derived with the least amount of fuss, Lucotte's lab landed on the type known as haplotype XIII. Then Lucotte tested Y chromosomes of ethnic groups around the world. In 1989 he announced that haplotype XIII was by far most common in one group: the 300,000 Aka Pygmies of the Central African Republic. 'The Pygmies are believed to be the first inhabitants of Africa,' says Lucotte, 'and they turn out to have the ancestral haplotype as the dominant one in their population.' He now thinks these genes must have spread throughout the world as the people that carried them left Africa. With a steady mutation rate, he figures, it would have taken about 200,000 years to derive all the modern variations from this one ancestral template.[12] This should knock out those who suspected humans evolved where they lived. Leaving "we took this world" theories. Those being that the current generation of Homo Sapiens moved into the lands formerly controlled by earlier generations. Whether by force, or if previous generations died out earlier, or by mating isn't yet known--probably all three. ...Primate Report. The journal is the work of Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten, two psychologists at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, and it is devoted to cataloging the petty betrayals of monkeys and apes as witnessed by primatologists around the world. It is a testament to the evolutionary importance of what Byrne and Whiten call Machiavellian intelligence--a facility named for the famed sixteenth-century author of The Prince, the ultimate how-to guide to prevailing in a complex society through the judicious application of cleverness, deceit, and political acumen. Deception is life in the natural world. Stick bugs mimic sticks. Harmless snakes resemble deadly poisonous ones. When threatened, blowfish puff themselves up [like humans?] and cats arch their backs and bristle their hair [dogs do this] to seem bigger than they really are. All these animals could be said to practice deception because they fool other animals--usually members of other species-- into thinking they are something that they patently are no. Even so, it would be overreading the situation to attribute Machiavellian cunning to a blowfish, or to accuse a stick bug of being a lying scoundrel. Their deceptions, whether in their looks or in their actions, are programmed genetic responses. Biology leaves them no choice but to dissemble: they are just being true to themselves. The kind of deception that interests Byrne and Whiten--what they call tactical deception--is a different kettle of blowfish altogether. Here an animal has the mental flexibility to take an 'honest' behavior and use it in such a way that another animal--usually a member of the deceiver's own social group--is misled, thinking that a normal, familiar state of affairs is under way, while, in fact, something quite different is happening. [example: baboons:] Whiten saw a member of Paul's group, an adult female named Mel, digging in the ground, trying to extract a nutritious plant bulb. Paul approached and looked around. There were no other baboons within sight. Suddenly he let out a yell, and within seconds his mother came running, chasing the startled Mel over a small cliff. Paul then took the bulb for himself. In this case the deceived party was Paul's mother, who was misled by his scream into believing that Paul was being attacked, when actually no such attack was taking place. As a result of her apparent misinterpretation Paul was left alone to eat the bulb that Mel had carefully extracted--a morsel, by the way, that he would not have had the strength to dig out on his own. If Paul's ruse had been an isolated case, Whiten might have gone on with his foraging studies and never given it a second thought. But when he compared his field notes with Byrne's, he noticed that both their notebooks were sprinkled with similar incidents and had been so all summer long. After they returned home to Scotland, they boasted about their 'dead smart' baboons to their colleagues in pubs after conferences, expecting them to be suitably impressed. Instead the other researchers countered with tales about their own shrewd vervets or machiavellian macaques. 'That's when we realized that a whole phenomenon might be slipping through a sieve,' says Whiten. Researchers had assumed that this sort of complex trickery was a product of the sophisticated human brain. After all, deceitful behavior seemed unique to humans, and the human brain is unusually large, even for primates--'three times as big as you would expect for a primate of our size,' notes Whiten, if you're plotting brain size against body weight. But if primates other than humans deceived one another on a regular basis, the two psychologists reasoned, then it raised the extremely provocative possibility that the primate brain, and ultimately the human brain, is an instrument crafted for social manipulation. Humans evolved from the same evolutionary stock as apes, and if tactical deception was an important part of the lives of our evolutionary ancestors, then the sneakiness and subterfuge that human beings are so manifestly capable of might not be simply a result of our great intelligence and oversize brain, but a driving force behind their development. [note: remember Farley's relationship between creativity and crime--type T stuff] In 1976 Humphrey had eloquently suggested that the evolution of primate intelligence might have been spurred not by the challenges of environment, as was generally thought, but rather by the complex cognitive demands of living with one's own companions. Deception, however, had rarely been reported. And no wonder: IF chimps, baboons, and higher primates generally are skilled deceivers, how could one ever know it? The best deceptions would by their very nature go undetected by the other members of the primate group, not to mention by a human stranger. Even those ruses that an observer could see through would have to be rare, for if used too often, they would lose their effectiveness. If Paul always cried wolf, for example, his mother would soon learn to ignore his ersatz distress. Byrne and Whiten's solution was to extend their pub-derived data base with a more formal survey. In 1985 [and again in '89] they sent a questionnaire to more than 100 primatologists working both in the field and in labs, asking them to report back any incidents in which they felt their subjects had perpetrated deception on one another. Only the relatively small-brained and socially simple lemur family, which includes bush babies and lorises, failed to elicit a single instance. This supported the notion that society, sneakiness, brain size, and intelligence are intimately bound up with one another. The sneakier the primate, it seemed, the bigger the brain. [see entry on rat's brain's becoming more complex only with mental stimulation] All the other species, however, represented a simian rogues' gallery of liars and frauds. Often deception was used to distract another animal's attention. Sometimes the deception was simply a matter of one animal hiding a choice bit of food from the awareness of those strong enough to take it away. Concealment was a common ruse in sexual situations as well. Baboons proved singularly adept at a form of deception that Byrne and Whiten call 'using a social tool.' The cases most resistant to such officious denials are the rarest--and the most compelling. In these interactions the primate involved not only employed tactical deception but clearly understood the concept. Such comprehension would depend upon one animal's ability to 'read the mind' of another: to attribute desires, intentions, or even beliefs to the other creature that do not necessarily correspond to its own view of the world. Such mind reading was clearly evident in only 16 out of 253 cases in the 1989 survey, all of them involving great apes. [example:] One of these chimps was alone in a feeding area when a metal box containing food was opened electronically. At the same moment another chimp happened to approach. The first chimp quickly closed the metal box, walked away, and sat down, looking around as if nothing had happened. The second chimp departed, but after going some distance away he hid behind a tree and peeked back at the first chimp. When the first chimp though the coast was clear, he opened the box. The second chimp ran out, pushed the other aside, and at the bananas. Chimp One might be a clever rogue, but Chimp Two, who counters his deception with a ruse of his own, is the true mind reader. The success of his ploy is based on his insight that Chimp One was trying to deceive him and on his ability to adjust his behavior accordingly. He has in fact performed a prodigious cognitive leap--proving himself capable of projecting himself into another's mental space... It is certainly suggestive that only the great apes--our closest relatives--seem capable of deceits based on such mind reading, and chimpanzees most of all. [our closest dna relative] This does not necessarily mean that chimps are inherently more intelligent: the difference may be a matter of social organization. Orangutans live most of their lives alone, and thus they would not have much reason to develop such a complex social skill. and gorillas live in close family groups, whose members would be more likely to punish an attempted swindle. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, spend their lives in a shifting swirl of friends and relations, where small groups constantly form and break apart and reform with new members. Many anthropologists now believe that the social life of early hominids--our first non-ape ancestors--was much like that of chimps today, with similar opportunities to hone their cognitive skills on one another. [note: remember theory of Neanderthal speech disability] Consider too how much more important your social wits would be in a world where the targets of your deceptions were constantly trying to out-smart you. After millennia of intrigue and counterintrigue, a hominid species might well evolve a brain three times bigger than it 'should' be--and capable of far more than deceiving other hominids. 'The ability to attribute other intentions to other people could have been an enormous building block for many human achievements, including language,' says Whiten. 'That this leap seems to have been taken by chimps and possibly the other great apes puts that development in human mentality quite early.'"[13] [dogs--understand some human speech, and were able to communicate enough to be able to form and utilize the advantages of packs] [this could mean that crime is good for society and we should lessen the punishment on criminals--they're just doing what comes naturally] Domestication of animals probably occurred with the old among primitive peoples. After all old people aren't likely to have wandered far from food, and had lots of boring time on their hands. We are developing technologically at the rate on the high slope of an exponential curve - super fast. What would have happened if we did not have all those setbacks: the downfall of the Greek and Turkish empires, or the decline of China? All who had knowledge only again learned in the Renaissance. The church too, responsible for the backward growth during that time, and the constant drain on resources (money to operate the churches and thoughts desirable toward returning us to the past - a simpler time, when they controlled things). Ethnocentrism also, not considering all humans equal. Evidence for each of us being gods: because nothing in the universe matters except our own lives. We should allow nothing to stand in our way. I am not saying that you should be self-centered, just watch out for yourself, and help others to help you. What if we had lived in a more active sector of space--where we would never think of space as merely a rotating sphere set up by a god? What if the people of the planet were all one race, and was of generally one mind (for example, a military like government). What if it is necessary to develop at an exponential rate to avoid some larger (well established) space empires? While living in a more active area of space probably would lead to a quicker understanding that they are not at the center of the universe, it still would require that they have a simple orbit on their planet. Since a complex planetary orbit would really screw up their minds ("the sky never repeats itself"). Perhaps a thousand years one way or the other does not matter. There are many Science Fiction scenarios in which a planet is invaded and conquered because it was unaware of true nature of the universe. On the other hand all could be harmony. In science, truth is a moving target. The knowledge of one generation is merely the jumping-off spot for the next generation's inquiries.[14] The 750,000 - 100,000 (?) years ago european ice age caused a draught in the desert areas of (now) africa (sahara, etc.). Thus the old ("first" human evolved) who followed to the north to withe regress of the glaciers, were separted from the original homeland of where man first formed, by a vast desert. And the cold may have utimately killed them. Left to isolation, those in africa again evolved, and moved north, again, when the ice age left. Eventually the race that was trapped became Neanderthal's--only to be wiped out again when the ice age ended, and the "current" model of human swept out of southern africa. During the ice ages, those in the south had no where to expand in africa. The clustering and limited domains forces civilization and thought, which led to isolated devlopment. They also cooperated, which, along with better technology, were deciding factors in wiping out the "primative" models who evolved (also, but more slowly) on the other side of the ice-age-formed desert barrier. --A&E Journey's "The Birth Of Europe" If our region of space was more active (or the moon spinned) then the first civilization to develop printing would go on and develop space ideas and literally dominate the planet through technology.[126] If animals and stars "bloom" like punctuated eq. then so should civilizations (especially in that "blooming" sector).[126] From: A&E's "The Birth of Europe": Apparently--at just the right times--there were ice ages in europe. What this did was create vast deserts (like now really) in northern africa. So, a land that was perfect for humans, was now an unpassable wasteland. One model trapped north--evolving, and another trapped south--also evolving in the tropics. When the desert receded--the southern models (twice) came out and wiped out the old models. Another bastion falls. So, remember, when people talk about evolving from neanderthal/homo erectus/peking man/java man, or when they talk about dark matter, or the big bang--they're wrong. Isolate the facts and reform theories presuming those aren't options. And remember the billions of stars in each galaxy--and that the number of solar systems we know that don't contain life, is zero. With the natural resources just about gone, the human race could never 're-invent' the industrial revolution if it as a society fell back to pre-industrial age. We would develop a more thinking/visualizing society--perhaps what the indians would have become? After all, without computers only the human brain and art would be used to create/visualize new ideas.] [Studying the ice of greenland...] 27� ...some 10,000 years ago the rate of snowfall in central 27� Greenland doubled, almost to present-day levels, in just 27� three years. In fact, most of the increase came in a 27� single year. In that geologic micosecond, researchers 27� estimate, the average temperature over Greenland jumped 27� almost 12 degrees. (More snow or rain indicates a warmer 27� climate because warmer air can hold more moisture.) It's 27� as if New York's climate had suddenly and without warning 27� turned into that of Atlanta. ...the ice-age climate 27� warmed abruptly at least ten times in the last 40,000 27� years, stayed warm for 500 to 2,000 years, then chilled 27� again [change coming on within a decade].[159] [we're in 27� a warm period, that has already lasted 11,000 years] 27� Hopping is the best running style for cramped areas (like 27� forests)--you use your maneuverability to run away from a 27� predator. Galloping is the best running style for open 27� fields--you use your speed to run away from a predator. While 27� normally this would be in the Battle section, it helps 27� confirm a theory about how we evolved. You see, evolution 27� isn't about perfecting an organism. It's about making an 27� organism more suitable to its environment. Some centuries 27� this may mean being big, some centuries small, etc. The 27� chimps didn't evolve into us. The rain forest was dying out 27� and the land changed to wide-open savanna--with precious few 27� trees. To cope with the heat (the sahara, beginning another 27� desert cycle), we became bipedal. The fact that we gallop 27� confirms that it was savanna when we made the adaption, and 27� the fact that it was savanna means that it was hot. Too hot 27� for fully haired apes. So we dropped the hair, and stood 27� upright to keep cool. The extra cooling allowed our brains to 27� expand. Since there was nothing much to do all day, we 27� learned new skills--starting by improving our throwing 27� ability to drive predators away. After all, you can only 27� stay up and starve in one of those few trees only so long. 27� Chimps today like throwing stuff to drive another chimp away, 27� or just for fun. Once it clicked in their mind that it could 27� be used to drive a predator away while you grapped food-- 27� well, that just started the increase in reasoning 27� abilty.[158] 27� Sentient life could be rarer than we think if what is 27� begining to shape up as a odd array of disasters is what 27� created us. And while reading the disasters, remember: 27� nature doesn't change unless it has to--without them, the 27� next stage would not have occured: 27� 27� Earth hits an object, forming the Moon. 27� 27� Having the Moon, Earth lifeforms experience relatively mild 27� and slightly changing environment. 27� 27� Meteor kills dinosaurs, making way for mammals. 27� 27� The ice sheets pull back for an abnormally long 11,000 27� years and continuing. This provides us finally with time to 27� leave the deep jungles of Africa and go out into the world. 27� And a steady/safe environment in which to settle down and 27� ply the land. 27� 27� However, the other side of the coin: maybe collisions aren't 27� all that rare, and that sentient life inevitably develops 27� almost everywhere. Dinosaurs Although it may sound positively wild, it is possible they became intelligent and went off into space. Perhaps then sending an asteriod down to "reset" everything so the planet gets a fresh start. Perhaps they followed the same path we are: the digging up of our old cities. As we advance into space, we have most "everyplace" we've ever lived open to the elements--anything that would destroy all our current cities, would now also destroy most any city we've had. Of course, this is all highly speculative. I don't really believe it, but it is possible. How to find out: genetically "regrow" some of the dinosaurs--see if what you get has any kind of brain potential (even that of a chimp would be significant--since the time scale from chimp brains to chimp brains in space is very short on the geologic scale). Conspiracy theory: An advanced race puts plants and insects on a planet to promote life. Or maybe the microbes that create the plants and insects, etc. These become animals--lizards and the like. Not intelligent. These became dinosaurs--not intelligent. After 120 million years of dinosaurs, they re-examine the situation. Find that the best possibility for sentience is in mammals--on the basis of some little rodent that is hiding among the dinosaurs. Now, knowing everything about evolution, they realize that the chance of this animal surviving and becomming intelligent may not be there (perhaps the dinosaurs can "hang on" for the entire evolutionary cycle of the rodents genes, whatever). So, they drop the big one to speed up evolution or eliminate the dinosaurs. Here we are, a MERE two million years later. 120 million years, and the dinosaurs produced a dead end, two million, and we're here. Ah, but it doesn't stop there. The sahara desert played a role. In two million years, there have been many "waves" of humans out of africa. But evolution was allowed to continue in a "hot bath" in africa because the desert stopped them from leaving. What if this desert didn't appear after, say, homo erectus? It could very well be taking us another few million years to get where we are now--if we had both survived and evolved. WE broke out about 300,000 years ago. Technically, that's how old we are. In 100 years we'll have conquered our solar system. Taken individually, each item has a very good reason for it's date and set up. But taken as a whole, and we've got exponetial growth AFTER the meteor hit. Without the meteor, we probably shouldn't have reached this point for another 100 million years (exponential growth curve starting before the dinosaurs). Has some government, somewhere, decided that if no sentience appears after 120 million years, and the models suggest none will, that it's acceptable to alter the situtation to again encourage sentience? The only acceptable situation for this is if the dinosaurs, like fish, weren't sentient, but machines like insects and plants are. 120 million years is a long time for a sentient race, perhaps this type of "procedure" is necessary to offset races that die out. "Seeding" planets. 27� It is also possible that the meteor did not "wipe out" the 27� dinosaurs, but merely caused so many changes that competition 27� for many niches occured and the dinosaurs lost most of those 27� battles (the battle of who could change/adjust fastest). Re- Question: WHO is in charge of evolution? sponsibility Should we do our best to protect the "natural evolution" of animals. Or do we have the task of "forcing evolution" to get the animals to grow. The question occured to me when I saw a news report about the successful (more or less) transplanting of some birds onto an island. In all probability, the stresses of the changes will force some sort of minor evolutionary change. Should we put all the animal species through obstacle courses to enhance their brains/etc. (like we do now), or put them into protected/isolated areas? What if an advanced race came and said: we're going to teach you all we know, then you'll want to live in space--where your brain will increase and your body shrink. Is this right or wrong? Death It forms a basis for much of my thinking. Extinction of one self. If the money going to defense/war was going into medicine two things would happen: (1) the full knowledge of medicine would prove that there are no "souls" that gods can collect, etc. Essentially reducing the power of religion. (2) We could be living longer (hundreds of years at least). Just do CAT scans of brains of dying people/animals to see which part dies last to find the point to begin the necessary research toward longer life. This type of knowledge will not be around for about 20 years (computers need to advance). What of a race who is peoples did not die so quickly? What would physics be like today if all the great physics people (Einstein, Newton, etc.) were still alive today - playing their mind games on the universe? A race who lives a long time also develops at an increasingly faster rate (unless it is some race where the old power people get to stay in office for life - not allowing new ways to develop). Also, long life would allow the imaginative thinkers to develop the skills necessary to bring their dreams to fruition. We should also be investigating animals like lizards and worms--who regrow parts. Find out why they don't live forever. I had to be reminded about mummification. Preserving the body without freezing. The body is frozen just before death so that the brain doesn't suffer damage from lack of oxygen. Using a simple storage method, you preserve the body but have a period of oxygen deprivation if not done before the moment of death. Still, this is the way to go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Lenin still sitting in a vacuum air-tight coffin in Russia, perfectly preserved. Summum Corporation (Salt Lake City): the only mummification company. [One] gets dipped in secret sauce, covered with polyurethane, wound with linen, encased in resin, hermetically sealed for eternity in a mummiform of bronze or stainless steel. Mummification can easily cost $35,000. In all the tests. . .nothing has decomposed. [Still perfect after years.] You can still move the skin. . .and. . .eyes look [excellent]. [In normal funerals, the body still decomposes even when embalmed.] [They] began studying body-preservation techniques of the ancient Egyptians, whose afterlifestyle depended on an undecayed body in which the soul could dwell. Since 1979 [they've] done exhaustive laboratory and field tests, experimenting with how different types of salts reacted to cellular structures. The Egyptians dehydrated and thus preserved the body with natron, a naturally occurring mineral salt, but [they] use a wet method. If [they] dehydrated the body, it wouldn't be viewable at the traditional funeral. They body will be embalmed so there can be a funeral service, then shipped to [them], where [they'll] place it in a stainless steel vat of fluid that's a combination of salts, oils, alcohol, and other chemicals, as well as natural substances, similar to the aloe plant, that inactivate the tissues. The body breaks down through two processes--its own chemistry, powered by oxygen, and bacteria. By saturating and inactivating every cell, driving out the oxygen and replacing it with our formula, we've eliminated both processes. The Summum method preserves the internal organs in situ, [except] the brain, which is removed through an opening in the skull, embalmed, and then replaced. [There's more, but already I think this process is just as destructive as decomposition.] [They] evacuate all the air, replace it with inert gas, and weld the mummiform shut. As long as no one opens it nothing can corrupt the body." [I think this is all that really needs to be done!] Probably suspended animation will be a form of death, preservation, and then being brought back to life. Perhaps the problems of death can be solved as so: when a species dies in it is natural habitat, a ready-scanned duplicate is created in a safe place of existence (electronic). Then, maybe, give it brains, and an environment where only the brain controls things. Thus the species has its own personality (its "self") and has equality with the other species (the environment is some place, somewhere). Perhaps. It could be self contained/self running. I do not immediately see the growth potential, and there are still ethical questions concerning whether it would be proper to interfere. However, all life really should be preserved. Perhaps a "reincarnation" in which the controllers bring you back as creature slightly higher on the evolutionary scale. A less advanced race would start at the most sentient beings (going from top to bottom you might say) and as their abilities grew stronger they would go to the next level. An intelligence incubator. Why is not the universe more obviously populated with all sorts of life if this has been going on for infinity? I have been assuming very powerful beings. Less powerful should at least encode the life-info until they decide what is correct and how to implement it. We should not be murdering our own people by allowing their brains to decay-- since once destroyed it is very unlikely the mind exists. We must assume non-existence after brain destruction, since the cost of being wrong is everyone in the past. When we have the technology to create artificial human shells (that is, make skin, bones, muscles, etc. in mass production and put them together to form humans) there is going to be much blame about why we could not have preserved the important parts of those people. Einstein's brain is preserved (for study purposes). On this: Some . . . slices were encased in celloidin, a plastic; then all the pieces were preserved in formaldehyde. Pickling brains in formaldehyde is still done, but few truly revealing investigations can be done on them after a certain period because the chemical nature of the brain changes.[15] Note that brain damage occurs usually upon death just as it would if the brain suffered a lack of oxygen while alive. So besides total knowledge of the brain, we also will need to develop techniques for repairing them. Alcor Life Extension Foundation 12327 Doherty Street, Riverside, CA. A non-profit organization in which members pay $100,000 to have their bodies put in cryonic suspension. $35,000 for storage of the head only. An insurance policy may be taken out to cover the costs upon your death. Coming out of hibernation: after being dormant for 3 weeks, the arctic ground squirrel (a mammal) shivers a few hours to bring its temperature back to normal. During its dormant hibernation-like periods, its body temperature is near the outside temperature of the snow it burrows into (just below freezing of water). It doesn't get frostbite despite this. They don't have an "antifreeze" in their blood.[16] Some species avoid freezing through biochemical changes in their bodies. But, remarkably, the answer for many other animals is that they freeze solid and survive. While frozen, all these animals [various reptiles] show no movement, respiration, heart beat or blood circulation, and our latest experiments show barely detectable neurological activity. Ice accumulates in all extracellular fluid compartments and fills the abdominal cavity and the bladder; crystals run under the skin and in between muscles. These animals have mastered the tricks of organ cryopreservation--the freezing of live tissue for storage and subsequent use... ...Freezing is lethal for most cells. Ice crystals rip through cell membranes and damage subcellular organelles; cell contents spill out, and the discrete localization of individual metabolic processes within the cell becomes scrambled. [If can't control ice formations] ...two alternatives exist. The first--and most familiar-- strategy is to avoid exposure to temperatures below the freezing point of body fluids. Animals simply 'choose' relatively warm hibernation sites under water or deep underground. Numerous insect species overwinter as aquatic larvae, and many types of frogs and turtles hibernate at the bottom of ponds, where they are safe unless the body of water freezes completely. On land, toads may dig into the earth to remain below the frost line, and snakes may congregate in underground communal dens. The second alternative to freezing is to use specific adaptations that stabilize the liquid state at subzero temperatures. All water solutions, including body fluids, have an equilibrium freezing point, or the temperature at which an ice crystal placed in the solution will begin to grow. But all water solutions can also be supercooled--that is, they can be chilled will below the equilibrium freezing point before the water crystallizes spontaneously into ice [not spontaneous-- need to move it slightly first]. Human plasma, for example, has a freezing point of -.8 degree C but, if chilled in a controlled manner, can be supercooled to -16 degrees C. The presence of nucleators, however, limits the extent of supercooling. Nucleators are compounds that seed ice growth by providing binding sites that can order water molecules into the ice-lattice structure. Ice itself is the best nucleator, but plasma proteins, foreign bacteria and food particles also act as effective nucleators. To stabilize the liquid state, then, animals must eliminate nucleators or prevent the nucleators from triggering widespread crystallization--in effect, animals must lower the supercooling point of their body fluids. ...The same molecular actions that enabled anti-freeze proteins to block the growth of embryo ice crystals were equally effective in blocking the recrystallization of existing crystals. Together, then, the two proteins control ice structure: ice- nucleating proteins seed the formation of extracellular ice, and antifreeze proteins stabilize the ice crystals at a small, harmless size [keeping ice out of the cell-- by promoting the growth of small individual ice crystals around the cell, but far enough away as to not damage the cell--using an anti-freeze and cryoprotectant (such as sugars, salts, or alcohols) to act as separator of the crystals and an internal preservative, Trehalose and proline is used to preserve the cell's borders against collapse]. Key enzymes involved in the synthesis of these compounds respond uniquely to low temperatures. Whereas the activity of most enzymes and other metabolic processes lessens with decreasing temperature, temperatures between zero and five degrees C actually raise the activity of an enzyme called glycogen phosphorylase by stimulating it to convert from its inactive to its active form (the enzyme chops hexose sugar units off glycogen to begin synthesis). In addition, low temperatures inactivate other enzymes, resulting in a redirection of the flow of carbon from the normal routes of carbohydrate catabolism (used to produce cellular energy) to special pathways that lead to cryoprotectant synthesis. Cyroprotectants persist throughout the winter, and then as spring begins they are converted back into sugars to fuel the continued development of the insects through the pupal and adult stages. glycerol, sorbitol and related compounds represent excellent choices of cryoprotectant in biochemical terms. Not only do these compounds provide the osmotic actions needed to regulate cell volume during freezing, but they also remain nontoxic to cells even at very high concentrations. They do not crystallize spontaneously from aqueous solutions at low temperature, and they pass freely across membranes. In addition, these polyhydroxy alcohols stabilize the structure of proteins and enzymes and protect them from the denaturing effects of low or freezing temperatures.[102] A patch of dried mud near Clarkia, Idaho, preserved this leaf for 17 million years; in fact, when the mud was cracked open, the leaf was still green. Researchers were then able to extract and analyze the leaf's DNA.[111] They have gotten DNA from a termite that was trapped in amber from 30 million years ago.[136] And there had been epidemics of this sort of thing on other worlds, sudden and unaccountable die-offs, when beleaguered portions of the general population suddenly gave it up. We have seen the future and it is not us.[113] [This is an interesting threat. To my knowledge nobody's really studied why tribes die out.] Note: thanks to William Gibson: Do not create humans via "clones w/o brains"--too slow, too many problems. Instead build the bodies from parts grown and created. Build a body and put the brain in it. Use last memories to determine if two people are clones or not. More recent memories = older version. From the movie: The Clone Master Movie: "Defending your life": time separation and illusion to join "universal brain trust" Defending your life had an interesting idea: a being was run past a series of "illusional lifes" or "illusional worlds" depending on their brain usage. At the start, they were tribesmen, and as their brain usage increased, they were moved (after death) to a more advanced society. While, at the surface, this system might be wierd and very complex to implement. It's based on the God principle--that a single being was directing the whole thing (or group of beings--the goal being to generate full-usage brains to join the universal brain trust). What's interesting: that religions and this idea will be doable. Use energy beings--beings stored as computer data throughout their life until they're "ready" to accept the reality of it--to accept responsibility, etc. It can work. Sort of like a training course for AI's, only where we have AI's now, we'll one day create intelligent beings (the goal being to create beings with diversity). Although, I must admit, if we make to energy-only beings, I'll wonder why we need to create any more of us. If we eliminate death, there may occur a strong desire to not create new beings--not sure, this point will depend greatly on beliefs and needs of what we become. This may sound morbid... but I'd like to hear/see/read a daily "death stats" of the day. Containing, basically, the number of people around the world that died of such-and-such the previous day. I think this would do a lot to making people understand their own mortality. What would also be nice is if they could be broken down by country. Xenophobia That's something that isn't really mentioned much about selective evolution--that the more intense the selective environment--the more of an advantage when one leaves that environment into a less intense one. Perhaps that's why the second wave of man (homo sapien) was able to incredibly eradicate his predessor--perhaps that's the way evolution functions. Thus appearing to be punctuated, but only because the "attack wave" of new species which had been breeding in isolation only occurs rarely and all at once and is very fast. As with man, perhaps an act or accident of nature triggers it (a desert becomes furtile, a volcano builds a mountain, a land mass breaks apart, ...) The scenario for the second wave of man: having been isolated by the desert, they developed through near constant tribal battles. When the desert receeded, they merely continued-- except instead of getting wiped out, they were merely pushed out--thus putting a halt to a fairly fast rate of development. But their psyche hadn't changed: simple xenophobia--if not our tribe, then enemy tribe, so attack. Having been defeated at home, they would find easy pickings among homo erectus. Perhaps, through a tradition of makeup, they had been conditioned to ignore the appearance of other tribes, and simply to attack them--after all, dressing up and acting up to scare the opponent is a standard battle tactic. We still carry all the seeds with which they used and had at the moment of breakout--so we should easily be able to understand the new world they were to move into. This actually raises an interesting question: is xenophobia/racism herediary. I've always thought it was environmentally based (you learned it from your parents)--but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps what we don't learn from our parents is the ability to control this feature. Much like we're taught to control our ability to kill others. Xenophobia: the fear of strangers or foreigners. Human models spread out across the globe from single points. We're the only animals with laughter. We and the rest of the great apes have a genetic "need to deceive" our fellows. Another nail: xenophobia. Whether we want to admit it or not, we'd like to see the destruction of all those "not like us". Starting with groups (eg. white, black, asian, spanish, arab, indian, etc.). Once those "opposing" groups are gone, groups of those who disagree (eg. religion, life-style, income level, etc.) would be next. Eventually the "need to eliminate" would kill off all but you alone. That is, should that we have allowed the instinct free rein--it's only allowed moderate rein now, usually do to something stirring it up. Question: do you think the "need to decieve" and the xenophobia of the human race (and probably most animals--a survival trait after all) is sufficent to produce humor? The vast majority of humor is, after all, about suffering. Spatial abilities are needed to design and formulate the joke, and the joke also provides advice (warnings of what not to do--yet another form of xenophobia--conformality) which perhaps explains why they're so prevalent in humans alone, as well as why they've survived (most early lessons on life were transferred though the generations only by speech and song). Homo I'd be interesting to see which "model" of current human is Sapiens: the fast evolving one now. Based on the notion that The Next "societal interaction" is what leads to brain development, Generation would hint at the Japanese. However, their homogeneity would seem to be an inhibiting factor--at least in the short run. This leads back to when chimps became hominids. It had to be a tight group--crowded area--and a period of rapid growth--a punctuated (equilibrium) point--had to occur. So at some point, most likely, a variety of "proto-humans" must have existed--which, it is my guess, helped further to propel the process. Russians? Worlds best theoreticians--but this is due to their methodology (little experimental science). Americans: while Farley's type T suggests that we're the most creative nation, we're also a melting pot--too many types, one would have to further break up and divide the country to form/identify sub-groups. I would recommend a study of engineers and computer programmers--future thinking creative individuals. Interestingly, most countries suffer the homogeneity problem. Central Europe to the mediterranean looks best to me--right mixture of mixing while still maintaining areas of (stable) homogeneity. You see, too much instability leads to confusion: new improved models get sublimated by other models that can target their specific weaknesses. But areas of stability offer the model a chance to go somewhere and succeed. So I suggest that that is the trick to finding the next "version" of human--parse groups and sub-groups looking for differences, going by countries alone will most likely prove unreliable. I do have my suspicions--I think it's the Germans, but I wish to investigate their history more thoroughly to see how the Germanic tribes developed and spread--and yes, I am. The germans seem to have come out of the NW Europe area (Netherlands/etc.) and an old empire is only now being discovered that controlled the areas up and down the west european coast (including Britain I think)--which may be the impetuous--that is, an isolated society--after dying the "new models" it produced were able to set up shop and influence without much more competition. [prior to 4th cent AD] Interesting--it was they who created Odin and those Gods, and in a rarity among ancient religions--did not endow their Gods with immortality. Although they also believed in fate (for the gods also). But otherwise it was a "down-to-earth" very creative religion--one that probably helped keep rulers in line (versus providing legitimacy for whomever was strong enough to take the post). Look at Japan and China--china the age-old stable empire, and japan a people who adopted change. But japan only became modern recently--they were a better china but not a better western culture. Look at countries/regions that were taken over much by larger empires: egypt, ottoman, greek, roman, etc. Europe is best bet--look at some of the laws, which country/region passes "enlightened" laws. Demographics is the key--especially if you can it viewed over time. Now, this opinion is slightly biased--so until I hear from others we'll see what shakes out. And no, I don't shave my hair and haven't learned a particular salute. Perhaps I'm only a cheerleader...cheering on my genetic makeup. Demographics is the key. History, and now DNA testing, has shown us that new "models" of human spread out from a point. As we map these "points" and the pattern of spread, we ought to have a better idea of how evolution works. Indeed, the very homogeneity of various countries shows that the "point then expand" system is in effect. Previously this had solely been considered due to environmentally based changes--the "common human" changing according to environmental needs of the region. Since going from bio->electronics is tricky. I recommend the brain be connected then slowly convert all the functions to electronics (memory, speech, etc.) Must emphasize humanity over robots--feeling, touch, etc. until artificial biological bodies/robots can replace them. We should perhaps concentrate on improving humanity biologically and adding electronics. AI robots: problems of self realization and questioning. Creating a robot with the intention of it growing like a human requires that it have a good heuristic system. What are the status of space empires now? Few empires last, since there is so much room to expand that control eventually takes it toll and the large empire crumbles into smaller empires. Eventually dying out when they no longer grow (technologically, emotionally, power, etc.). Any good empire probably would only watch over us. We are approaching a time, though, when we will no longer be considered barbaric (after we put our own house/troubles in order). At this time races who are only at the level of technology where they travel through space learning and making contacts with other races (about the level of Star Trek). This type of empire will want to contact us. Of course, there probably are bad empires out there also, empires who need slave labor. We have some good options: (1) They may not know about us. Despite our transmissions we are still in a somewhat isolated corner of this galaxy. (2) We have no central government - nobody to take over, no control here. When a government falls apart or goes out of favor here - we are ready to become an anarchy (for example, Lebanon, many other recent situations when government loses legitimacy, causing riots and looting by every-day people). (3) We are militaristic. We will fight for this planet, leaving the enemy with many casualties. Our huge supply (which we must mostly eliminate to resolve our own troubles) could do serious damage to any attacker (we could even wipe out ourselves making all their work a waste). For what we could be up against read ~Battlefield Earth~. As medical technology advances farther we start seeing (and using) drugs that will keep our brains active. This might allow us to have the same brain power as we did when we were in our prime (15-25 or so)(for example, Nimodipine[17].) This also might lead to an evolution expanded head/brain. A race can advance to no longer need mechanical devices to do various things. Doing things with their mind. This can be done via: genetic restructuring, device implant, etc. To do: find these "keys" and tap them. One key is, I suspect, a matter --> energy and vice-versa ability (small and powerful, where powerful = amount advanced). While we are not an extremely advanced race we can still consider ourselves far evolved from the rest of the life on this planet. That gives us the same responsibilities an advanced race would have. It is these responsibilities that keep human kind children for now. Some questions of an advanced race: 1) Do you make lower life forms comfortable, safe, secure, and happy (control their world), or do you just give them their natural habitat and leave them alone? I take the position that once you have domesticated them you should give them a happy comfortable life, but animals in the wild should stay wild since applying your will to them will only make them feel trapped, they are happy now. 2) Do you try to advance lower life forms? For example, give a monkey the knowledge of a human (with any necessary biological enhancement). If so, at what point do you stop. With what species do you draw the line (bugs?). If we gave cats human brains, how would they feel - they have the knowledge but cannot do much with their limited body, and to change the body is to change the species. I take the position of leave the species alone, let them develop themselves, and when they have invented genetics they can evolve themselves. 3) Do you give them a "good death." Provide a place to die happy. Would not this interfere with their rights to challenge death? Mixing of ideas reduces the value of individual society distinctions, therefore we should observe unless think alike and are similar technologically. Although duplication of research could be reduced. The mixing of ideas can lead to new ideas and solutions also. It probably isn't a good idea to have races who are biologically incompatible (one breathes air, the other nitrogen, etc.) try to live together--as the natural tensions of survival may become dominate. Halfway to the center of the galaxy. The screen showed a scarcely-broken carpet of stars in all colors. The star- scene, like a hoard of jewels, thrice-ransom for an emperor, spread out before him. It was inevitable and necessary that they finally come here. But that did not lessen the dangers inherent in their coming. They were like the members of some primitive tribe, descending from their bare and starving mountaintop into the richer valley lands below. On the mountaintop they had gone hungry, but also they had gone unchallenged. Here, they should not go hungry, but no sensible man could believe they could go forever unchallenged--where there was so much richness to dispute.[18] I imagine most races go through three stages; 1) those who think they're alone, 2) those who help, or get help from, other races, and 3) those who are smart enough to know not to help. While all three can occur in sequence, they may also occur individually. Space is so big that others may not be found by a particular race. At what point do you interfere and let a race know you are there (no matter your level of advancement)? Definitely when they are beyond their childhood. Do you help them? Probably. How? Depends on level of advancement - only way I can think of is "insights/revelations" we have--but this is iffy since it is very hard to do. A race (including this one) evolves to the point where it totally understands itself (biologically) - once done, it can defeat death through better repair (or replacement) of worn body parts. When the race has advanced technology to the point where the computing machines can model a simulated brain as well as a brain of the race (accuracy/fuzzy logic, etc.) that race has taken the next step. After successfully modeling a single brain, each individual can be modeled, so that when they die they live on in the computer.[19] As the computers increase in speed so does the computer-beings. The next step is when the go through the energy spectrum; electronic, light, whatever. Eventually existing without their mechanisms (free energy) (perhaps "multi- dimensional"/interfaced with space itself). Purpose of life; to experience: feeling, touch, smell. These cannot be obtained after death (if you go electric). I can see no step after this, except expansion. Note that as a being expands in all areas it may eventually be possible to memorize every aspect of a section of the universe. If evolved so far, that can perfectly memorize the section of space - then things really can happen. A race in this section can be "recalled"/remembered repeatedly - each time the being "remembers" this section of space the ancient dwellers in this section will not realize it - thus thinking they have Free Will, when actually they HAD Free Will. Other things are also possible: time travel (since all events will be recalled as they had occurred nothing can be changed), instantaneous travel (since your (a dweller) time can be stop/started by the thinking being (or anyone who can resurrect these thoughts). Essentially all things are possible. When discussing such advanced beings it is useful to remember: infinite time --> infinite power, but only in certain areas. We need to think of these limitations, what they are not infinite in, also their ethics. On imaginative existence: [the brain's dreams] what happens when our brains are so finely tuned that we can produce an EXACT duplicate of ourselves in our imagination? [Or does probability/motion of atoms rule this out?] William Gibson's books are important reading. While ignoring the potential of preserving the brain, he does push both medical and technological developments. To construct his visions requires two things: full knowledge of our biology, and a method of integrating electronics/etc. with our bodies without rejection. There seems two paths available: internal growth and external growth. Internal growth is creating our own evolution - designing improved bodies. External growth is expansion into space. For us to survive requires both. Expansion into space will allow us to find other races and advance our own technology. Which in turn will allow us to advance ourselves. The real threat: ourselves - what I call "human entropy." When one thinks of living simpler times, one is thinking of death. When one is thinking of utopia, one is thinking of death. When one thinks of gods, one is thinking of death. The hope of a relaxed life, in which peace is everywhere, is nice. When that leads to no technology development ("we have it all why find more") then one is thinking of death. This can affect whole races.[20] Without challenge, only death exists. The challenge: ourselves. The universe is so massive we cannot hope to explore it all. It makes one think of empires, thousands of planets big, that collapse in time (all do). For its individual challenge supported by the whole that will allow survival. One need not control the whole universe to obtain the abilities and eternal existence of a truly advanced race. The size of the universe provides infinite diversion for those without death. I suspect that higher evolved beings cannot change the fundamental structure of the universe. In the early days people lived in tribes. This can be imagined as a bunch of clustered circles. Nowadays we use networks both with people and information. These networks can be imagined as connected singular circles. What is the next step? Unconnected singular circles or maybe one clustered circle (totally interconnected). Something the ~Neuromancer~ series didn't mention: a microstuff bus--where you can load multiple programs into your brain. Also that these program and data modules interface with the short-term memory of the brain, this would provide faster access than long-term memory links.[21] I don't think the human body will be allowed to change much from it's present shape. Some of the "evolutionary" changes mentioned are much larger heads, much smaller bodies, six fingers, etc. Bigger brains supposedly because we'd use our brains more--yeah, right. With computers and databanks we run more risk of losing intelligence. Six fingers stems from keyboards--hopefully we'll see the elimination of these limb- destroying devices over the next 10 years. Body changes to artificial stuff would probably only be as people get older, and even then they'll probably prefer organic-based materials. While competition could drive a few into making changes to enhance their competitiveness, this would be rare. We don't see much difference in the really driven versus the average joe now. Although job-specific enhancements could easily become popular (eg. butchers would probably enjoy knife-proof skin on their fingers). What language (human) can best get across the "future concepts" as well as "conceptualization" of the concepts (eg. spatial abilities)? This would offer an evolutionary advantage or at least a chance for change. After more thought, and an understanding of how we can thank ice ages for any drastic evoltionary changes, I now think women are the most likely to change. They have the pressure and the need. Nowadays, they are under tremendous pressure from such things as: being a wife, a mother, a worker, managing the house, and many other stuff. Yet, as a whole, they are "realistic" thinkers--caring overmuch about the here and now, not utilizing imagination or spatial capabilities. The next evolution, I've seen two names: Homo Supierior and Hyper Sapien. Homo Supierior (sp?) comes from Marvel Comics- -it's what mutants called themselves. Hyper Sapien is what I saw as a name on a Disney channel show. It, probably, refers to an advanced, but human, race living on another planet. Dogs can't take alchol--they know not how to make it, therefore are not at fault when they do. (same w/humans?) I bet it's this constant antagonistic pressures that will help us to become "all we can be" one day. Races that live in comfort and relaxation all the time probably don't advance too rapidly. This is, unfortunately, probably true of races that have long life-spans--so this is something to watch out for and to avoid. EXTRA- For lack of a better word. Essentially this section will try TERRESTRIALS to merge and organize my thoughts about them. It doesn't matter whether we think of other races or ourselves in the future. We both face and must answer similar, if not identical, questions. To this end, in this document you can often find me substituting either when I discuss potential developments. It doesn't even matter if advanced races don't exist or we don't really have a future. What matters is that we can imagine it. What I think is that problems can be solved with reverse- engineered logic. That is, when faced with the problem: what actions/attempts/solutions did other races do. ID these, then we know what road to concentrate on. To facilitate this, I emphasize practical implementations to problems. For instance, assume that most races are neither coldly logical or deadly brutal. Examples of similar alien problems: travel in space without getting killed by micro-meteorites. Navigation/cartography of the universe, knowing where you are. I won't go into physical structure of races. All we need really concern ourselves with is societal makeup's. Nobody has really asked the question: Why monkeys? Why did we evolve from monkeys. As a race, we were isolated and forced to fight it out-- monkeys were forced to fight it out. Given the amazinging number of random events that can occur, on any given planet where life has gotten past the machine stage, any given sentient being structure is possible. That is, if it were elephants that were forced to fight it out, we might well be decended from them now. So, when we think of other races in the universe, remember that we came from monkeys--they may have come from any other species, or monkeys too. Definition of sentient: given time you could learn all there is to know. The decision will be technology based. Something along the line "this species has no capactity to learn'. Also there will be a need to find ways to communicate (effectively), if you wish to teach that species. Maybe our "neighbors" in the galaxy will prepare Earth-like planets and leave them near us. Saying, "here, this is for you, lets be friends." Dividing up areas of the galaxy, giving each inhabited planet a "zone" of uninhabited planets/solar systems they can call their own. A really good idea for peace.[126] "Sentience always evolves. it just needs time. Someday human beings will terraform some other lifeless world for some other people. For beings who have not yet come into existence." Using "Meercat's" to represent that any intelligent life should be saved (a Meercat was a weasel like creature--representing our cat's no doubt).[126] Some Dweenlee [from StarFlight II] a race chronically depressed interesting beings who are highly suicidal and don't mind being slaves-- races but make bad slaves. This type of scenario could develop with races that over produce and thus live in abhorrent conditions. Spemin [from StarFlight] a race who always talk war and threaten you, but are incredibly weak militarily. An unstable society. Thek [from ~Sassinak~ and ~The Death Of Sleep~] a rock race. Perhaps silicon, but also perhaps another type of rock with an internal radioactive heater that keeps some of it fluid to provide change. NgKherArla [from StarFlight II] a race of personality changers. When in the Ng state, they war with all. In the Kher state they war easily. In the Arla state they are peaceable. What's interesting is that they believed they shouldn't travel too much into space for fear of being in someone else's space when they changed personalities. A cyclic race. A robot/machine race. A race of clones. A society where everyone conforms to a rigid standard. Considering any deviation bad. This society would not evolve--but may last a very long time if their belief structure isn't overly shaken. This would, perhaps, especially include a computer directed race. An engineered race. Designed to attack and destroy. Created to, perhaps, attack an enemy. Could be "programmed" to live without changing and last a long time. Or a created slave race. You know, biological robots of the type advanced races are likely to do when desperate and under the threat of attack when they've given up war ages earlier. A race genetically engineering a species of itself for space travel and then having them return as conquerors. Because the conquerors were built upon the races tech development and history and evolution, the race is instantly in decline and would die out. The earth can be imagined as a giant bowl of water with organic matter in it. The moon as the mixing stick. For it's the moon that causes tidal action, causing erosion. Causing a mixing up of organic matter, may even cause most of the weather. But what about earth-like planets without a moon. Then you've got a "steady state" planet. Organic matter grows and decays without mixing. What you've got is a hot, cloudy planet covered in swamps. I suggest that the moon makes us "less than common" in regards to how life evolves, and that on a dominant number of planets it evolves in the swamp-planet like atmosphere described. I therefore conclude that the most numerous type of organic sentient life is reptile. These beings probably take a long time to evolve, and then another long period to first discover, and then decide to try for, the stars--since the atmosphere would mostly be fog. So, next step, how does the universe, and others in the universe appear to these beings. And what can we expect by the way of technological growth and direction. What I was thinking: there is a range in the size of moons, from non-existent to very large. The larger the moon, the moon "activity" the planet goes through--the more stirring of water, more erosion. And that with smaller moons this is reduced--ultimately leading to a "greenhouse effect" (for wont of a better word). Since very large moons (like ours) are probably rare (eg. scientists still haven't figured out how we got one). I agree that they'll develop the same technologies, etc. But I think that they'll develop different ones at different speeds--as there is no reason to suppose their priorities would be the same as ours. Imagine living in the amazon, what would the priorities be? Dry land, clean water, who knows? But they wouldn't have the diversity of climate like we do, the whole planet would be varying degrees of hot swamp. Indeed, they may never develop into air-livers (stay aquatic) if there is too much water. We see too much of the "close encounters of the third kind" type of alien--white with big eyes and small body. The body is the type you could develop evolving in space. But certainly the brain cases are too small. I'd guess that space-based sentient life de-evolve first into massive heads with small bodies. I'm glad to see that the makers of MegaDeath's _Hanger 18_ video showed, what I thought to be, all highly probably aliens. I'd expect a planet with a larger moon (up to about half the size of the planet, anything more would tear them both into asteroids) would produce strong tectonic activity, leading to a violent planet with lots of land, crevasses, strong winds, etc. But the sky's would usually be cloudless, and if any lifeforms did develop, they're likely to be very tough. When I said reptiles earlier, I really mean "cold blooded". "Reptiles" brings up images of scales/etc. And while this is entirely likely, shells/water and air breathing/no claws/etc. are all possible. Another reason to suspect they may be the most prevalent: should their planet decay into desert, they would still be well adapted. Only when the planet became really cold would they run into trouble. Swamps, jungle, and rain forests all produce incredible amounts of life, and diversity among life. So, interestingly, while the planet may take longer to develop sentient life, it probably develops life a lot quicker than our planet did. Do we have an innate suspicion of artificial intelligence?[22] Races without one would be more susceptible to domination, and/or prefer dictators to a democracy. Knowledge transference is also important. For instance, teaching is one way. Another is full instinct transference (like ants). Partial instinct while the rest is "normal" (like pets). Direct instinct-like transference of real knowledge [idea from _The Death Of Sleep_[23].] Such as a "race memory" in which if a member of a race learns medicine than all it's offspring could "inherit" that knowledge. Unless their brain sizes is ever-increasing, some knowledge will get filtered out. The whole race could store everything ever learned (taken as one-brain). A limitation of this, as noted in The Death Of Sleep is that it would be like an instinct, in that much of a similar situation would have to reoccur (you pass on medical knowledge, but if the diseases or tools change overmuch you'll need a refresher). The race could easily become robot/factory like; "We will have our next child when the council deems that another citizen with the skills our child will have is needed." Gordon R. Dickson solved the problem of communication with races who don't speak the same language. His book used a device that projected on a screen what the users expected. That is, if they wanted the other race representative to follow; the image would show them moving away with the representative following them. This can be done by simply manipulation of images. The image of the representative's actions can be modified versions of recent recordings. One would input the type of moves and whatever into a computer, the computer generates the animation and figures of the known race, and inserts the alien race appropriately. The representative understands through the pictures what they are trying to say and what is expected to happen. They would know, for example, to avoid following if the image shows them being court-martialed and put in front of a firing squad.[24] ZZ Top's _Rough Boy_ video has some interesting ideas. The group is shown as holograms appearing from flat TV-like devices. Interesting if you assume that they are stored within the devices and then can use the holograms to appear to the real world. A bit like living pictures. Also interesting was the space station, it was portrayed as a high-tech car wash. Nobody's really given much thought to the maintenance of space-only vehicles. Perhaps have a "car wash" in which all the little dinks from micro-meteorites are filled in. An interesting problem: discovering a race of backward humans. Typical of empires that rise and fall, isolated groups may regress. Or it may simply be the case of another human-like race. Either way the question arises: do you intervene to advance them to your level? On one hand this comes under the rules of non-intervention. On the other the humans may resent you for not doing it. Obviously we can go by history to aid us here. Slavery though shouldn't be an option. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --ARTHUR C. CLARKE Energy or electronic based beings are the great equalizer. Whether you started as a race of geniuses that got into space in 100,000 years, a race of humans who got into space in 2,000,000 years, or a race of "neanderthals" who got into space in 60,000,000 years. Once you convert your brain into energy (such as chip based for starters) than you're just as good as the other races who did this. I would like to remind you guys, that properly designed chips would be many, many, times faster than our current brains. If they're optical chips--that's the speed of light, probably something equalvalent to all our thinking in our life time in one second. That's got to be weird--to be so fast in a universe that is so slow (changewise)--worth expanding on. Contact I've mentioned about where does the responsibility lie when an advanced race comes across a "primative" race. I was thinking about ST:NG and the "Q" "race" and their contact with humans (specifically I was thinking about the "cyborg race" episode, and what would ST:NG have to do to stop them). I've now realized that for an advanced race to even contact a lesser race, is the equivalent of teaching that lesser race. "Popping" in and saying hello, is just like telling them that: 1) their are other races, 2) this is what one of them looks like, 3) this is their level of technology, 4) these things they can do. It's 4 that's the most interesting. Since observation of what the advanced race is doing (eg. "popping" in and out) will confirm to refute various theories of theirs--leading to quicker solutions and discoveries along the lines of the theories that were'nt disproven. In effect, the advanced race told (taught) them what was wrong with some of their theories. It's an all-or-nothing situation. If the advance race contacts the primative race at all, it must then watchover the race and either "bring it up to speed" or completely nullify the encounters effects. Of course, all sorts of different race "types" will come across primative races--including those who only wish to destroy all life forms. I think races that are well organized and have a good sense of ethics (towards other sentient life) will be in the majority. Why the majority? Because "extreme" races are races undergoing change--they're active, they want to do things--whereas "conservative" races sit back let everything slowly change. I've already gone over all this in my document, but it's really just an application of a "natural" phonenoma. 25 Nature opens a niche, nature rushes to fill it. If a species 25 can become sentient before the niche again closes (or move 25 onto other niches)--it survives. When we kill off species, 25 we're really telling nature to expand another species into 25 that niche. Kill off all the rats and either birds or 25 cockroaches will expand to fill the void (usually taking on 25 the same proportions and diet). (Actually, killing off all 25 the rats would be very serious--since they're the cornerstone 25 of the mammal line--they usually expand to fill empty 25 niches). Implications for other races: may not be any if 25 they all had to live hard and fast like we are. Long Life Ok, you don't want to live forever, but, is 60 years enough-- or would you like more than that? The thing with immortality is that, while you may live forever if you wish, there's nothing stopping you from dying after 5, 60, 150, 750, etc. years--you decide when. But in reality, I don't think we'll obtain immortality for a very long time. What we are likely to achieve is long-life. But it would be interesting in how far "long-life" was practical. For instance, if you were involved in a space battle, and your ship and you got blown to bits, would technology be able to put you together again from a couple of parts? True immortality would't require others to rebuild you, but long-life does. One thing that promotes long-life I see comming up over the next 10 years is prothestics. The mergeing of computers/CAD/CAM and medicine should make "designer bones" more practical, cheaper, and much more like the originals. The problem right now is the cost and that phoney bones can't duplicate what regular bones can--but these are being worked on. If one can successfully replace all the bones in the body with, say, plastic parts that last longer, then people would be able to maintain a physical peak even after their brain goes. (The weakening of bones and joints is a serious problem as you get older.) We can thank the multi- millionaire sports players for a lot of the modern developments in the art of body repair. Quality of life, that comes under my title as "improves provided you can survive until then". To be honest, in such a situation where the person is a vegtable, it might be better to take the "1000 year risk" and freeze them, rather than the "100 year risk" of waiting for a cure. Also, if the brain is decaying--like it does in comatose people--then it's better to maintain life, but stick 'em in the freezer. It seems I've been assuming that given long life/immortality, you could always find a way to die--even if it took you millions of years to dissolution yourself atom by atom. However, I now realize I was assuming material beings. An energy-based being, or even worse, a "space itself" based being, may not have the choice or the ability. In some ways they would then be prisoner's themselves. 27� Usually it's thought that if you live long enough you simply 27� get bored and want death. 27� 27� But we are humans, and we have an odd twist. 27� 27� I first read about this twist in Fred Saberhagen's _Earth 27� Decended: Calendars_. In which after living some 100+ years 27� in a society to which death is preventable, the main 27� character decides to die. Trouble is, he just can't find a 27� good date to do it on his busy schedule. 27� 27� And that's the twist. Let's say right now you wanted to die- 27� -you're bored with life. Well, on dates in which something 27� you like happens, you won't select that time. For example: 27� if you love watching football, you're not going to do it 27� during the football season, and not on draft day. Thus, 27� there's a relationship: the more things you like, the harder 27� it is to kill yourself. 27� 27� And notice: football isn't some glorious scientific study-- 27� it's pure entertainment. So the theory that one gets bored 27� because there is nothing for them to do goes right out the 27� window. (Such as when all knowledge is known/etc.). And if 27� you don't like football, heck, design your own fun game. 27� 27� A possible problem with this is it may encourage an insular 27� virtual reality as we advance. Instead of watching home-town 27� teams, they may abandon them for more creative stuff like 27� adventure games/etc. I suspect, then, that advanced races 27� can be divided into two peoples: those who explore space to 27� see other beings, and those who spend all their time in 27� virtual reality. 27� 27� Possibly also, games need never become boring: if you become 27� an energy being or have some sort of programmable nature to 27� your brain, you can define what you like, etc. 27� 27� However, it should also be noted that being so dependent on 27� entertainment for life means that if something should happen 27� to it, the beings are likely to commit mass suicide 27� immediately. The classic SF scenario: big central computer 27� controlling things--once destroyed, the people are free, but 27� no reason to live ("Welcome to the machine...") (presuming, 27� of course, the usual loss of knowledge of how to fix their 27� computer). 22 Master Mind _Childhood's End_, _Blood Music_, and the _Foundation_ series 22 have similar themes: that the human race will evolve into (or 22 part of) a "master mind"--in which what we know as humans now 22 will be the equivalent of the cells in our bodies now. A 22 supression of individuality to form a new mind. 22 22 _The Rapture Effect_, and Gibson's books, have something 22 similar, but it uses computers to form the master mind. 22 22 Both assume the master mind can do things better and see 22 farther and know more than humans separately could ever do. 22 Implicit in this seems to be a blief in psychic powers-- 22 although that's not the case with the computer versions. 22 22 The trick in our future will be to avoid both of these. To 22 fend off any attacks by "master minds"'s to subjugate us, and 22 to keep our computers under control even as they get bigger. 22 22 One way to stop these master minds is to form artificial 22 bodies. To stop the computers we simply must keep an eye on 22 what they do, and greatly limit their intelligence. 22 22 You see, each of us can become a master mind of our own: all 22 it requires is knowledge, the more knowlege, the closer we 22 become (such as the dancers in _Chapterhouse: Dune_). 22 22 Buy maintaining an artificial body, such as that of the 22 terminator, we can get past any "biological" master minds 22 (such as those who believe in Gaia's (that all planets are 22 Gaia's, such as in _The Forge of God_). 22 22 We also need not wait for each individual to grow. For we 22 can create our own master mind by our networks. In which 22 decisions can be made by all those on-line and thoughts will 22 appear as the ebb and flow of information and decisions. It 22 provides us with individual free will since we'll be able to 22 come and go from the network at any time. I'm thinking 22 cyberspace type net and computer control program which 22 simulates the placing of our decisions on a brain (of 22 whatever form). 22 22 A way to defend against these master minds is also to 22 diversify--move out into space. 22 22 It seems that all SF books I read about the far future can't 22 get past the "one brain for the humans" barrier. I suspect 22 this is because they want one god, not a race of gods. 22 22 Long before we have to worry about our far future, we will be 22 in energy form, and doing all sorts of FTL to other places. 22 In other words, I think the "end of the human race" will 22 neither be a wimper nor a bang, just continue on forever in 22 another form, but still individuals, and still recognizing 22 each other when we come across each other. I don't mean 22 spirts or ghosts--but the analogy is similar, as those 22 attributes we give to spirits will be much like our life as 22 an energy being. In The End What happens to the human race. When we know all there is to know. Whether we discover FTL or the fact that it's impossible. Do we create bigger and bigger projects (planets?). ST:NG shows us an elightened society--but they have FTL. Indeed FTL is merely a "delaying factor". If we have FTL then maybe it takes us 10,000 years to reach "the point" rather than 1,000 years. "The point" being the point at which there is no new knowledge to learn. What keeps people going then? Since our lifespans will be determined by the type of accidents. Could "societal interactions" (marriages, interacting with other people) alone keep the race going forever? And what about after "the point"--do we become energy beings? We'd be in the same rut. Basically, these thoughts assume that the pursuit of knowledge is the primary driving force. Artistic, monetary, and power making pursuits might also sustain growth. These pursuits may get tiring for individuals after a while, but they might keep the race going. Other things that might keep the race going: downfalls--when a planet "crashes" to pre-industrial ages/whatever and needs to build up again. Also, interaction with alien races (although this is just another "delaying" factor). THE BRAIN AND THE BODY Misc. Why do animals grow old and die? Molecular biologists have an answer: they say that gradual deterioration and death is an intrinsic (although still mysterious) property of cells.[53] Possible theory on how memory works: when an action occurs-- the brain has a "wave" of stimulation. Our memory does not remember the event, but the points that are stimulated. Recall probably just SIMULATES stimulation of these points. This would allow our memory to save stuff with just on/off signals. Data in the brain may be stored in chunks and clusters (with boundaries and borders the same as those read initially into the brain). Output can be pulled off the brain in the same way as you pull printed pages off a tractor-feed printer. It feels like a rubber-type of paper that had been laid down. Moving and then pulling it (and everything that makes you up) goes - you feel yourself moving as if both part of the material, and seeing the material pass you by - as if a confirmation process about what is being processed - note that you see this "close up" as well as the whole image (the "rubber paper" being pulled from the distance [toward me? When I shifted angle I then saw the close up? Yes I think so. - saw nothing of where I going, but It just looks gray and brown of where myself and my memories were coming from. This was part of a dream in which a being could suck "yourself" out of you and make you one of their zombies, I had just been caught by their zombies, I figure I tried to simulate the transference process. I really did see borders, such as a word heading like "science" bracketed by black lines across the top of the page to mark the subject (for example, "...======== science =======..."). I really did see black lines of the same width around small blocks of text also, for example: ____ |text| |text| ____|text| |texttextt| |texttextt| ----------- The text did not originally have these blocks when I read it in, I suspect that this is a form of emphasis the brain assigns text - perhaps the border represents an increased resistance to erasure. After a little more thinking, which probably less resembles memory than analysis of the few images I have left of the experience: I have decided that the borders were like road bumps--that you could go over, but you would have literally to climb over (road slow-down bumps seen from ground level), whereas you could rover around the enclosed area examining the information in the area for whatever you had been looking for. It is interesting that plenty of science fiction novels and other literature suggest that we (or aliens) would want to colonize other planets. That we must colonize for population purposes. Obviously the declining populations of the developed western countries shows that this need not be so. It is possible a race would still produce like rabbits and need to expand--this would most likely be a warring species. The nervous system. Myelin, a fatty substance that insulates (sheaths) healthy nerve fibers. When a virus attacks this sheath and replaced with scar tissue, that nerve fiber can often cause spurious problems, such as numbness, weakness, prickling, paralysis, or uncontrolled movements. HLA antigens, protein molecules on the surface of a cell that identify it to the immune system as friend or foe.[54] More thanks to ~Battlefield Earth~: thinking about repairing ageing skin I thought of how it is just an overlay and under was just blood/etc. and bone. If you could hold it in place- -then you could do wholesale operations. Merely pressurize the area around the body at the same pressure as in the body and one can remove skin and do surgery (etc.) without loss of blood. See ~Battlefield Earth~'s section on repairing auto consoles. Death is when the brain is no more. Not when your body dies. If you duplicate your brain into a machine, and destroy the body, you are still alive, in the machine. Asimov's race of long-lived humans for some reason only lived 400 years or so. He goes into great detail about some problems of long life; boredom, extended feuds, overpopulation, old power guard, lack of communication within fields of study, slow progress, emphasis on enjoyment, etc. If one is immortal they are likely to get bored after a while. When bored they may become violent, just to stimulate themselves. The time may come when they always bored and always violent. The only way to stop someone like this is to lock them up. That would be cruel in itself. If a race of immortals know all there is to know, and are starting to get bored. A solution will need to be found. Possible solutions: erase memories, find a way to excise the part of the brain that has to do with boredom, implant addictions in the brain (a lock-up technique), give them a "universe" (virtual) to run, and no doubt others I can't think of. Using reverse-logic I therefore conclude that the universe cannot be boring because there is no acceptable solution to an immortal becoming bored. We may not know what the universe is, but we know it will never be boring. These are probably likely to occur when we ourselves extend our life-spans. Being aware of the dangers is probably not enough, we will need a system in which progress continues. A constant goal of making a life-span both longer and with fewer accidents is a good general goal. It should help avoid some traps (the danger of death gives fear and drives to the living). To keep progress truly progressing can only come by exploring space. FK-506 (anti-rejection drug), cuts rejection rates by 90%, fewer complications, works better than the others. Note: DO NOT sign over rights to use body parts/blood/etc. for use in medical research while you're still alive unless compensated. Copper deficiency [may be] to blame for cholesterol accumulation and heart disease. . .[by raising] levels of high density lipoprotein, or "good" cholesterol, in the blood--which in turn prevents low density lipoprotein, or "bad" cholesterol, from clogging up your arteries. Americans, who get a lot of heart disease, typically don't ingest enough copper (found in foods such as beef liver and nuts). Rats fed a low-copper diet are unusually prone to heart disease. Fed rats a copper-poor diet and gave them either [water, beer (not low alcohol), or pure alcohol.] The beer-drinking rats lived nearly six times longer--nine months instead of a month and a half--than their. . .counterparts. They also had lower blood cholesterol and fewer enlarged hearts. The small traces of copper found in beer were by no means enough to counteract the rat's dietary deficit. Some other ingredient in beer enhanced [the] rats' ability to absorb more copper from food. Their livers, where the mineral is normally deposited,. . .found that the beer-drinkers had three times more copper than the water-drinkers.[90] [Note: compare heart disease rates and ages of death between Americans and West Germans, and Milwaukeean's vs. general US population over time.] Idea of stimulating the brain to regrow the body. Hearing specialists have long stressed the dangers of rock concerts, but it's not the moral fiber of America's youth they're worried about. What concerns them are the fine, upstanding tufts of hair that stick up from the sensory cells of the inner ear. When exposed to prolonged, intense sound, these hairs can flop over like stalks of wheat pummeled by hail. Until recently, however, no one knew exactly why they collapsed. Using an electron microscope, Harvard physiologist Charles Liberman examined the sensory hairs of cats that had sustained mild but potentially reversible hearing loss, then compared them with the sensory hairs of cats with permanent hearing loss. 'With temporary loss, you can't see a heck of lot wrong with the hair cells,' Liberman says. but in the permanently deaf cats the hairs had keeled over. The hairs' rootlets--the small, narrow structures connecting them to the rest of the cell--were broken. Liberman thinks of the damage to the rootlets much like a stress fracture. When sound enters the ear, he explains, the hairs rock back and forth in response to the resultant vibrations. The rocking causes the sensory cells to release a neurotransmitter that stimulates auditory nerves, leading to the sensation of sound in the brain. The hairs themselves, however, are rigid; they can bend only at the flexible rootlet. If the rootlet is overstressed, forced to rock too hard and too long, it can eventually break. With the collapse of the sensory hairs, the whole cell becomes useless, as does its associated nerve, and some hearing is lost forever.[97] The cream-colored flesh of his cerebellum, criss-crossed by bright red capillaries, rises out of a clear pool of cerebrospinal fluid. The cerebellum is a baseball-size object that sits at the base of the brain toward the back of the head. It plays a vital role in coordinating voluntary movements such as walking and speaking. Jannetta is looking at the front edge of the cerebellum's left side. beneath it, hidden from view, is the part of the brain he needs to get to: the stem, where the 12 pairs of cranial nerves emerge and branch out through the body. All the autonomic functions of the body (breathing, the senses, the workings of the major organs) are regulated the brain stem. So, of course, is the heart. And in the medulla, the lower part of the stem, are groups of neurons that regulate blood pressure by telling the heart how hard to beat and blood vessels how much to constrict. The neurons in the medulla get signals from nerve cells in the walls of the aorta and the carotid artery, the great vessels leading from the heart. These nerve cells use the stretching of vessel walls as an indication of blood pressure. Their signals travel up to the medulla along the ninth and tenth cranial nerve pairs, called the glossopharyngeal and the vagus, respectively. Neurons in the medulla respond by sending signals back down to the heart along the vagus. Other neurons send signals along sympathetic nerves to blood vessels throughout the body.[98] The article goes on about how blood vessels impinging on nerves cause medical problems. Wouldn't it be weird if a cure is to route these vessels through a plastic tube--just think of all those science fiction movies where the villain lackey's have tubes of liquid coming out from one part of the head and going into another. On destroying tumors: Like X rays, protons can destroy tissue by splitting apart DNA molecules or forming reactive oxygen free radicals from water molecules. But X rays, on entering the body, deposit most of their ionizing radiation in the first few centimeters--and do not stop once the reach the tumor site. Protons, in contrast, give up most of their energy only when they slow to a stop, allowing higher- radiation doses while leaving nearby tissue intact.[101] The brain stores data in two forms: single image and script. It stores a detailed image in high res of as much of an object as it, well, remembers. Script is events, what happened when. When recalling motion events, the brain, using the images and following the scripts, literally draws/designs the memory recalled event. This is also how imagination works--you design the script (sometimes as you go), then the brain takes the images it can supply and plugs them in, it does a fuzzy "can supply" so that everything gets something if possible. I suspect this script generated design may also be lower res than the actual memorized images. Very simple, yet very flexible--memory is words or images, but not film. One part makes the scripts and images, another reads and plays them. Might also explain why designed imagination can be hard to recall after it leaves short term memory. For years it has been known that when an animal or a person sniffs an odorant, molecules carrying the scent are captured by a few of the immense number of receptor neurons in the nasal passages; the receptors are somewhat specialized in the kinds of odorants to which they respond. Cells that become excited fire action potentials, or pulses, which propagate through projections called axons to a part of the cortex known as the olfactory bulb. The number of activated receptors indicates the intensity of the stimulus, and their location in the nose conveys the nature of the scent. That is, each scent is expressed by a spatial pattern of receptor activity, which in turn is transmitted to the bulb. The bulb analyzes each input pattern and then synthesizes its own message, which it transmits via axons to another part of the olfactory system, the olfactory cortex. From there, new signals are sent to many parts of the brain--not the least of which is an area called the entorhinal cortex, where the signals are combined with those from other sensory systems. The result is a meaning-laden perception, a gestalt, that is unique to each individual. For a dog, the recognition of the scent of a fox may carry the memory of food and expectation of a meal. For a rabbit, the same scent may arouse memories of chase and fear of attack. [Cortical neurons] continuously receive pulses--usually at projections known as dendrites--from thousands of other neurons. the pulses are conveyed at specialized junctions called synapses. Certain incoming pulses generate excitatory waves of electric current in the recipients; others generate inhibitory waves. These currents--'dendritic currents'-- are fed through the cell body (which contains the nucleus) to a region called the trigger zone, at the start of the axon. There the currents cross the cell membrane into the extracellular space. As they do, the cell calculates the overall strength of the currents (reflected in changes in voltage across the membrane), essentially by adding excitatory currents and subtracting inhibitory ones. If the sum is above a threshold level of excitation, the neuron fires.[107] Thrombin, a substance essential for clotting. Thrombin is a protease, an enzyme that eats away at other proteins; it transforms the large protein fibrinogen into threads of fibrin, which mesh together to make a clot.[108] Nerve terminals--the ends of the nerve cells, which release chemical messengers called neurotransmitters-- were swollen to more than 30 times their normal size. [effects of old age.] The autonomic nervous system controls basic bodily functions such as blood pressure, heart rate, and the movement of food through the intestinal tract. Old age can bring on a wide rage of autonomic malfunctions; some elderly people faint when they stand up too quickly, others lose bladder control. The nerve clusters...--known as ganglia--are important relay stations involved in many basic digestive functions. Nerves feed into them from many locations and pass messages on to [nerve] cells that are embedded in abdominal organs. The damage appeared in the terminals of the incoming nerves. ...Determined that these bloated terminals were packed with huge numbers of neurofilaments, a type of internal scaffolding that gives normal nerve cells their shape. Ordinarily neurofilaments are broken down and recycled in the terminals, but these terminals weren't doing the job. ...People younger than 60 had very few swollen terminals, but in people aged 60 and up the number of damaged terminals increased dramatically. Not all the nerve terminals in each ganglion were swollen. The majority, in fact, were unaffected. Each ganglion has roughly a dozen different types of terminals, and each type releases a different neurotransmitter or combination of neurotransmitters. To see which terminal types were most susceptible to aging damage [they] stained them with ten molecular probes that bind to different neurotransmitters. To their surprise the damage affected only one terminal type--the terminals containing a neurotransmitter called neuropeptide Y. Elsewhere in the body, neuropeptide Y stimulates the contraction of blood vessel walls.[109] Mitochondria are, essentially, tiny powerhouses, designed to take oxygen and nutrients and transform them into usable energy. A cell with large energy requirements, such as a heart-muscle cell, can be packed with hundreds of these little sausage-shaped packages. Inside each individual mitochondrion is a complicated maze of tightly folded inner membranes. Oxygen and nutrients brought to the cell by the circulatory system shuttle back and forth across these membranes and are processed by teams of enzymes in a complex, multistage operation known as the respiratory chain. The importance of this oxidation process is abundantly clear. It produces the chemical adenosine triphosphate, the fuel that powers all the activities of the body's cells. Twenty-five years ago...several researchers...discovered that mitochondria had their own DNA. All other parts of the cell...are orchestrated by the DNA inside the cell's nucleus. Mitochondria, however, by carrying some of their own genes, evidently maintain a measure of control over their destiny. Mitochondrial DNA has several other idiosyncrasies. First of all, it is passed to a child by the mother's egg only, and not by the father's sperm. A sperm carries its mitochondria wrapped around its tail, which is jettisoned at the time of fertilization. Second, although like nuclear DNA, it isn't bundled into rod- shaped chromosomes but rather forms a small looping chain, like bacterial DNA. Third, mitochondrial DNA is comparatively tiny, comprising 16,000 chemical building blocks instead of the 3 billion contained in its nuclear counterpart. But whereas a cell has only one copy of nuclear DNA, it can have from tens to hundreds of mitochondria, each equipped with its own DNA. Finally, in another show of independence, mitochondria reproduce on their own. But their DNA can be slipshod when it makes copies of itself. if a mistake is made, the flawed copies are handed down along with the good DNA through ensuing generations as part of a family's total mitochondrial inheritance.[110] [DNA is a lot like a collection of files compressed into an archive. Mitochondrial is an additional archive file within the DNA archive of files.] A lot of the decline in function that old people experience in our society is due not to aging but to physical inactivity. In the long run researchers expect to find genetic bases for most of the specific plagues of old age, from bone loss to an impaired immune system. There may even be genes responsible for the whole process--genes for just plain getting old. 'Senescence genes' have already been identified in cultures of human skin cells; they seem to hinder the proliferation of the cells.[112] Your skeleton is undergoing constant remodeling. Every week you recycle 5 to 7 percent of the bone in your body. This remarkable feat is made possible by a reservoir of stem cells in the bone's gelatinous marrow. When needed, these cells mature into specialized bone-making cells called osteoblasts.[118] For two weeks this past summer two African green monkeys sat rigid in a lab at Johns Hopkins, unable to feed or groom themselves. The monkeys were afflicted with the symptoms of Parkinson's disease, a degenerative brain disorder. On the fifteenth day neurologist Mahlon DeLong and his colleagues injected a minute amount of acid into each of the animals' brains, forming a tiny lesion in a corn-kernel-size structure known as the subthalamic nucleus. Then the researchers watched. And waited. DeLong had a hunch that this procedure would reverse the symptoms in these monkeys and eventually help the millions of people who suffer from Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's victims are missing the neurotransmitter dopamine, a crucial chemical that carries messages between nerve cells in the brain. For years researchers had thought that this loss led directly to the underactivity in the brain that made it nearly impossible for advanced Parkinson's sufferers to move their muscles. DeLong, however, was basing his study on a new theory: that Parkinson's symptoms are triggered by overactivity in the brain. DeLong's idea was that the subthalamic nucleus, a part of the brain involved in controlling movement, is one of the biggest neurological dominoes tipped over by Parkinson's in a complex series of events. The first dominoes to fall are the cells that produce dopamine. Dopamine can either stimulate nerve cells or inhibit them; that is, it can either increase or decrease nerve-cell activity. In a normal brain dopamine appears to inhibit cells in the subthalamic nucleus. But in a Parkinson's brain the dopamine-producing cells die off; without enough dopamine the subthalamic nucleus becomes hyperactive and starts firing off signals wildly. These signals, in turn, overstimulate another brain region, one that's responsible for curtailing voluntary muscle movements. As a result, people with Parkinson's are often frozen in their tracks. By destroying part of the subthalamic nucleus in a monkey, DeLong hoped to see if he could set the dominoes that come after it upright again. His first step had been to inject the monkeys with MPTP, a neurotoxin that produces symptoms very much like those of the human disease. After animals had developed the unmistakable signs of Parkinson's, the researchers injected the acid into the subthalamic nucleus on the right side of each monkey's brain. Every brain has two subthalamic nuclei, one on each side. Since the right brain controls the left side of the body, a right-side lesion allowed DeLong's team to compare any movement on the left side of the body with movement on the unaffected right side. The researchers' vigil was a short one. DeLong was astonished to find that the monkeys regained their ability to move less than a minute after the injection. 'The first movement we saw was in the left arm,' he recalls. 'One monkey brought its hand up to its face. At first, we thought it was involuntary movement. But soon it began reaching for objects, such as bits of fruit. It became clear that a single small lesion had almost immediately reversed the symptoms. I thought there would be an effect, but somehow I wasn't prepared for its being so dramatic.' DeLong's work points to a new way to treat this crippling disease. For many years, the standard treatment for Parkinson's has been a drug called L-dopa, which replaces dopamine in the brain and reverses many of the Parkinson's symptoms. Unfortunately, the beneficial effects of L-dopa tend to diminish after a few years on the drug, and its side effects, such as jerking movements and hallucinations, become worse. 'Now we have shown that you can achieve a great deal of recovery, even without replacing the dopamine, by canceling out the effect of the deficiency further downstream,' says DeLong. He wouldn't recommend making these lesions in a human brain, however, for the subthalamic nucleus is in a delicate area. but it might be possible to find a drug that simply inhibits the subthalamic nucleus's activity.[119] An article on cancer developments in ~Discover~[121], has convinced me that cancer is about to undergo tremendous advances and may be something to not worry about. So until the current "cancer curve of discover" ceases or leads to interesting stuff, I'll be curbing/not covering any of the new cancer developments. ...Thrombolytics, or clot-busting drugs, break down newly formed blood clots anywhere in the body. Most heart attacks, it's believed, are precipitated by tiny clots that lodge in the narrowed arteries of the heart, cutting off blood flow to a part of the organ. by eliminating such clots, doctors can now restore oxygen-bearing blood to otherwise-doomed regions of the heart before the cells there have quite died--thus aborting a disaster in the making. Chest pain is a signal that heart tissue is starved for blood and the oxygen it brings; it is a cry for help from cells that are dying but still salvageable. Once the heart attack is completed and the muscle has died, the pain vanishes. But that portion of the heart is then forever scarred, unable to contract, and useless for propelling blood through the body. The pumping capacity of the heart drops accordingly, resulting in a range of symptoms from fatigue at the smallest exertion to life-threatening shortness of breath. ...Nitroglycerin tablets...improves blood flow in the coronary arteries by slightly increasing their diameter. If a blood vessel is narrowed but not entirely blocked, the drug may succeed in opening the passage a bit, thus bolstering the trickle of blood flow to the region it feeds. ...Beta-blocker, which slowed her heart from 80 beats a minute to 70 beats and finally down to 55. If we couldn't improve the blood flow to the region under attack, then we could perhaps reduce the heart's overall energy demands by chemically reining in the work it attempts. The thrombolytic most commonly used in the United States--called TPA for 'tissue plasminogen activator'... [usually needs to be given within the first 24 hours of a heart attack][122] For many years I've had a fan going next to me when I sleep. I've always known it gave me a better, deeper, sleep. A few years ago I learned that what I really had was a white noise device--which provides a filter blocking out numerous minor noises. Recently, I was "in between" sleep and wake. The fan sounded like the roar of a propeller-driven plane. My conscious felt it had a direct link with the ear also. This suggests to me that a direct link is 1) possible, and 2) probably the norm when we sleep. Probably nothing new here, I just now believe the "barriers/filters" we use when hearing can be bi-passed consciously. One question this does raise: does the subconscious act as a filter (as seems probable when the conscious is sleeping (since the subconscious is active then)), or whether the conscious multi-tasks the filter at night. And either way, it raises the question of how the filtering is done during waking periods. Filters are necessary, since without them a person using "super" hearing could be stunned helpless with a loud sudden noise, or lose concentration due to numerous minor "don't care about" sounds. I've been thinking more about how the brain stores images. It's almost impossible for it to store "raster" images (like photographs). While I do think it uses vector techniques to store animation, I now suspect it uses similar techniques to store single images. Not ordinary vector images, but more like 16 or 32 bit--where each "node" can have a variety of data depending on the "bits" set (each bit, also, may not be 0/1 on/off--probably has a whole range of values (including on/off for some, perhaps 64 for others (depends on how many chemicals make up a "bit" and what it can do)). But the number doesn't vary depending on the type of image (part of animation or solid picture)--rather those extra bits that are needed for animation can't be used for higher resolution/better color--at least 50% of the bits (although I suspect it's more like 90%) of each "node" can either be used for animation or better color--not both(?--the brain is analog, not digital). Starting motivation differs from continuing motivation. Compulsion = Addiction The brain isn't really meant to memorize movies. It's not a naturally evolved feature. Over time you forget most of all movies (the older the time, the more you forget). Now we have "refreshers" known as VCR's--this could provide brain growth. Also, Stimulation by rediscovery -> less growth/stagnant Or, Stimulation by frustration to remember -> more growth. Think about. On one hand there is pressure for the brain to evolve better animation handling (to recall movies) on the other we're developing technology to better refresh whatever brain cells do remember the movie. One's current body position influences the spatial imagination system. For instance, when you're sleeping and you decide to dream about driving--"driving" while sitting is rather hard--you keep wanting to lie down. It's also been well known that you have better recall if you can duplicate the environment in which you learned (whatever) in the first place. The mind-driven controls, developed over the past three years, are 'almost embarrassingly simple,' says [a pilot]. Two fluorescent lights flanking the screen flicker 13 times a second, causing nerve cells in [the] visual cortex to fire at the same frequency. Electrodes attached to his head feed his brain waves into an amplifier and a filter. The system easily picks out the 13-cycle-per-second waves, measures their power, and displays this information below the screen on a bar scale. To maneuver, [the pilot] consciously changes the strength of his light-evoked brain waves. If he enhances them, his cab banks right, up to 45 degrees; if he suppresses them, it banks left. [Only two steps available?] If his mind remains alert but unengaged, the cab stays level. [The pilot] can't explain how people change their brain waves. He just knows that they watch the bar scale as it registers changes, and that the biofeedback works. 'The subjects figure out their own ways to do it,' he says. 'Some say that singing in your head raises the power.' Although other researchers have attempted such mind-links, they've had little success. But they were trying to program a computer to decode a jumble of brain waves. [The] research team is the first to evoke a simple brain wave with a steady signal, then train that response through biofeedback.[64] The overworked brain, when it does fall asleep, does seem to do something interesting: the problems one banged their intellect against while awake, become real walls and boundaries when asleep. One dreams, slamming their "body" against these barriers, or feeling the presure of the barriers upon the "body" (the body conscious?). Indeed, the dreams can be like a HellRaiser nightmare--the scenes where you're moving thru the "tunnels". Perhaps this is key to resolving how the brain solves problems when sleeping. Traditionally it's been assumed that the rest itself is what gives one new insight--that the more relaxed state after sleep "relaxes" the brain and lets one think more clearly. I think not. I find that I awake with answers to problems rather than solve the problems after I awake. However, it is true that the work done after waking up is much more extensive, complete, and error-free than work done before going to sleep. I've pretty much decided on the following: The brain stores two forms of primary data for manipulation: image and script. Not moving images (like film). Images are remembered (color/etc.) and shapes are remembered, then to form an object the image is wrapped around a created shape. For animation though (imagination/dreaming/recalling) a script is read, then the brain draws out images to match (as best it can (fuzzy)) the script. This method explains a lot; how we can create what we haven't seen, why dreams "grow" and expand as we realize objects are missing in them, and the very limitations of the brain in storing such huge data. But remember, the script isn't in english. It's in the brains own language, which may be permutations of it's neurotransmitters, or the chemical (mixture) values sensed at multiple points. I suspect mastering this can lead to improvements--since the script can be thought of as software. At this point I figure it's set up to record in one of two ways: Method 1: record all input. The five senses, the brains' thoughts, maybe the subconscious thoughts, and maybe the automonous system's current readings. Method 2: record only those input that pertain. Remember, the script language will most probably be either a sequentially read/write type of environment. Since that is how organic systems like to work. Also, the recordings will be individual--a script of single letters--each meaning something different. Unanswered questions: whether the "language" is made of the finite number of combinations the input can supply, or whether on object of this language can reference another (forming a true langauge vs just having a coded language). Things to look for: Does the exact same conditions produce the same thought, and does erasing this thought and replacing it with another eliminate the previously stored thought (like macro keys). The building upon of previous ideas, are they expanded enhanced, or copied over--then added upon, and the old one deleted. The key to answering this: does previous/eliminated ideas sometimes appear, because I suspect only knowledge really isn't over-written once it's stored in long term memory--although it may first decay then die as it is organic in nature. I forgot about music/musicians. One reason I thought I could issolate images from the script is because it's the type of thing that varies from person to person. Some people are good at remembering faces, some not, etc. The same applies to music. Therefore this, and others, can be classed as "skills"--probably represented in the script as a CALL/JMP/GOTO/GOSUB/etc. to another part of the brain to do the processing. Indeed, this suggests the script is itself a language and not just a representational code. Music, like other skills ((programing/mathwood work/etc.) do seem to be learned skills. I know that I can't replay in my mind (on order) even a complete riff. But sometimes when I'll relaxing one will come complete with stero/etc-- suggesting the brain correctly recorded it--but when I concentrate on it (like dreams) it starts to fade as my conscious becomes more thoughtful about it. I suspect any skill is something you can develop a "feel" for--you feel something when you're exercising that skill-- something is stimulated. I also suspect the spatial capabilities of the brain play a large part--since you often "pre-see" what you intend to do. "Hmm...the thing about stereo particularly puzzles me...how can we THINK...in stereo. I know I can, but it doesn't seem PROPER stereo, it just seems as if the mind is saying "This sound is in the left channel"...I really wonder about that. Also, what is interesting about the mind as musical instrument is that it can act as both synthesizer and sampler...not only can it play back parts or snippets of things we have previously heard with stunning accuracy, it can also create its own sounds...one can listen to a song in their head and "play" over it with a "mind-created" solo track...its as if the mind is a giant mixing board, all with SMPTE time cues for images and MIDI to bring it all together into a unified whole. But one can do that with accuracy and/or variation that NO electronic equipment could ever provide in speed and clarity." --David Cowen This is an example of mixes up scripts, skills, and multi- tasking. I think there is something important here, but haven't realized it yet. When we drive, side views are a blur, we note them in short- term memory, but not long term. Perhaps the brain's "Overwrite" or "rewrite" capabilitiies key on this: sharp defined memories via color/etc. vs. smooth "fuzzy" memories. Short term mem--like a cache--only 7 items--I expect to be one of evolutionary changes we'll be going through (so watch for it). 7 is meant for survival. In yet another recent study, McLachlan and his team gave 24 Alzheimer's patients two injections a day of desferrioxamine, a drug that binds to aluminum and neutralizes its effect in the body. After two years of this regimen, the drug dramatically slowed the progression of dementia in these people. The patients still declined mentally, but only half as quickly as 24 other patients who were not treated. While it's true that food cooked in aluminum pots and pans can pick up traces of the metal, don't worry about it--the risk is so much greater from other sources. 'Avoid inhaling aluminum-containing aerosols or antiperspirants,' [Perl] suggests, 'because these are prepartions made for maximum absorption of an aluminum-containing product.' [because the easiest way for aluminum to reach the brain is by inhailing throught the nose.] McLachlan goes even further. He recommends that we limit our exposure to aluminum by virtually any route--food, water, drugs, cosmetics. The problem, however, is that much of the time we're unaware that we're actually encountering the metal.[since it's in just about everything][137] Rules The brain can be thought of as a computer. In which, at it's heart, it operates with certain rules. One of these rules may be: "If he wants it, then I want it too." This would be useful, as well as reflective of life. This rule allows new borns to learn which food to eat, or not, by watching their parents/others. This rule provides competition--which is necessary for survival. The competition provides an oportunity to think--which is necessary to expand the mind. Examples: You and your dog play keep-away with each other. Our desire to possess. Reminds me of a line from Silence of the Lambs: "You covet what you see around you." As a "basic" rule. It should be test-able in most animals (exceptions being biological machines like insects). The test: give one animal something that requires that play with it (or attempt to eat it). Have another one walk past. See if the one walking past takes an interest, and what type of interest. Neither animal should have had any prior experience with the something. In humans, we filter this with risk analysis. This may also occur in animals, so it should be taken into account. Dianetics Hubbard came up with an interesting idea; he felt that the brain equated everything with everything else. That is, he felt that A=B=C=D=E=F... in the memory, that all memory's were equal. After reading this, I recognized something important; that this was how the immune system's attacking cells worked to identify counter measures for its enemy. It checks for an identical pattern, then attacks. That's why AID's is such a problem, it changes. A little more thought: The brain gets inputs: sensory system (eyes, ears, feel, taste, etc.) and neural (self generated, autonomous). These can be thought of as data lines. What does the brain do with the data received? It stores it molecularly. How does it store it? How about one molecule on top of another? Yes, A STACK. Maybe to search the stacks you must first create a facsimile of what you wish, then the search system compares the facsimile's structure with what's along the stacks, if a match is found then it sends the data to the intelligence. Or maybe: IF match THEN operate muscles as stored instructions say to. Also, short term memory acts like a cache. The short term memory is a cache/filter. After all the human brain does not have an infinite capacity for expansion. Most of its "learning" is done using a variety of neurotransmitters and new connections. If anything the access channels are more like that of a bus. Since you access using a combination of the various neurotransmitters. Perhaps the amount of determination about getting at a certain memory enhances the effects of the search order by spreading it further throughout the brain and using a higher dosage of whichever combination of transmitters is needed (the coded facsimile?). Brings up question of when memory is analyzed by the brain (to "learn"). Does the data first go through a filter (as seems probably)--but doesn't this distort memory? Or is it read after it is stored? Or does it get sent down two (both) paths? The main thing I'm searching for by reading this book is the promise of full perfect memory recall. When you think about it, maybe you need to just "tune up" the search system to not avoid a certain level "neural thickness." That is, now the search skips over the less used neurons to speed the search. A threshold level. Stoic: a member of a Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 B.C., holding that human beings should be free from passion and calmly accept all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will.[p. 44] The analytical mind is that portion of the mind which perceives and retains experience data to compose and resolve problems and direct the organism along the four dynamics. It thinks in differences and similarities.[p. 55] The reactive mind is that portion of the mind which files and retains physical pain and painful emotion and seeks to direct the organism solely on a stimulus-response basis. It thinks only in identities.[p. 56] The somatic mind is that mind which, directed by the analytical or reactive mind, places solutions into effect on the physical level.[p. 56] Interesting part of the standard memory banks is that they apparently file the original and hand forward exact copies to the analyzer. They will hand out as many exact copies as are demanded without diminishing the actual file original.[p. 65] The amount of material which is retained in the average standard memory banks would fill several libraries. But the method of retention is invariable. And the potentiality of recall is perfect.[p. 65] Inductive: of or using induction, logical reasoning that a general law exists because particular cases that seem to be examples of it exist.[p. 70] Only things which are poorly known become more complex the longer one works upon them.[p. 4] Thalamus: the interior region of the brain where sensory nerves originate.[p. 20] Present time: the time which is now and becomes the past as rapidly as it is observed.[p. 21] Man is to be regarded as a sentient being. His sentience depends upon his ability to resolve problems by perceiving or creating and understanding situations. This rationality is the primary, high-echelon function of that part of the mind which makes him a man, not just another animal. Remembering, perceiving, imagining, he has the signal ability of resolving conclusions and of using conclusions resolved to resolve further conclusions. This is rational man.[p. 24] Self-determinism: is the state wherein the individual can or cannot be controlled by his environment according to his own choice.[p. 26] What I've found is that the human mind generally thinks in two forms, I've labeled these 2D and 3D. 2D is analytical thinking; when you worry, when you analyze, general day to day thinking. 3D is a dream type thinking; it takes place in dreams, its so spatial you can feel like you're there, etc. The difference is spatial, 2D is like a piece of paper, 3D is like a room. Example, if you don't listen to music for a couple of months (or just don't pay attention/enjoy it) you find that you lose the feel for music when you try to recall it. You can get the words and the beat but not the full stereo sound. When you put on a walkman for a few hours (submersion) you find that you can recall music in stereo/3D again--not just the songs you just heard but most. This suggests a recognition based memory recall system. Which is logical considering most if not all basic memory is built upon stimulus/response patterns which is recognition. Recognition is being able to recall a fact only after given a related fact, the other type of memory is simple recall--you recall it without needing the relational "reminder." Besides music the same seems true for general memory. That it is usually recalled in 2D until some stimulus sets it into 3D. So best memory recall is probably done by physically returning to the place of the memory rather than simply going back through the mind's time track. There may be potential here though. Such as instead of actually returning to the house of your childhood you could form the house in your mind and then, perhaps, that would stimulate the more intensive 3D memory of that time. For instance, I've found that thinking spatially will put me to sleep faster at night. I doubt whether mentally returning will ever be better than physically returning. After all, this is how skills work, you forget something after a long period of not doing it, then you return and the skill returns--because you've immersed yourself again bringing back the old memories. I've also noticed that "reheard" music (in the mind) is from the same source as dreams are. Both "distant"--not in the fore- conscious of thought, deeper. I remember a report where some tests were done on college basketball players. They were broken into three groups. One group told to practice free throws, a second group to imagine practicing free throws repeatedly, the third group told not to practice. The results: the first group improved it's accuracy, the second group improved it's accuracy almost as much, the third group didn't improve. Proving to me the significance of spatial understanding when learning or improving something. Also the value of image rehearsal. I've also noticed that I can improve seeing of visual detail by paying attention to colors. When driving, constantly notice the colors ("the sign is green with white letters, that car is blue, etc. (to yourself)") and you'll see things sharper. The brain's internal clock: It ticks. It's a lot like a dog's stimuli/response. system. Events that are random, the brain is constantly expecting (so as not to be shocked). This includes such things as the phone ringing, or an alarm clock going off. Thus, when a brain "tick" or "clock cycle" is executed, part of the brain power is dedicated to preparing for these "expected unexpected's." These known, and to be reacted to, events. This may include such things as avoiding tripping or bumping into objects. Hubbard also suggests that your memory works better when someone does the asking of questions. This is both interesting and frightening. I don't know whether it's true or not, unfortunately I think it is. After all, it explains peer pressure. There are control and abuse possibilities if this is true. External speech influence. Flu victims succumb, at least in part, to [their] overreacting immune systems. Normally certain immune cells engulf and destroy invaders. Among their weapons is a negatively charged molecule of oxygen known as superoxide, one of a class of highly reactive substances called free radicals. In fluids, free oxygen radicals break down and oxidize proteins. This process, which can be though of as the biological equivalent of burning, is a good means of combat in close quarters. When the body is attacked by flu, immune cells start to mass-produce superoxide. Soon other sources kick in as well, bringing on a flood of the lethal substance. These immune responses are concentrated in the lungs, the seat of infection from airborne droplets. The general conflagration destroys the virus, but in delicate tissues, such as mucous membranes, oxygen radicals can cause bleeding, excessive swelling, and lesions that open the way to bacterial infection--all events that get described under the collective label pneumonia. Researchers. . .have come up with an antidote using superoxide dismutase, an enzyme that sops up and destroys superoxide. Mammals routinely produce this enzyme, but it breaks down rapidly in living tissue; it seems designed for spot-cleaning rather than massive spills. So the researchers shackled their enzyme to a sturdier organic polymer. In tests on mice they found that the synthetic combination remained active in the circulatory system for more than five hours; without its polymer protector the enzyme disappeared within 30 minutes. The new therapy did not help the mice get rid of the actual [flu] virus and was in fact not designed to attack the bug. What it did. . .was restore normal body chemistry after the victim's own immune system threw it off balance. Free radicals are thought to play a harmful role in many other diseases, including cancer.[55] In response to stress the body produces high levels of natural opiates call endorphins. A closely related opiate, morphine, might act on a certain region of the brain to temper the immune response. The researchers found that when they injected morphine into this region of the brain in rats, the drug triggered a dramatic drop in the activity of natural killer cells, the immune- system agents that kill cancer cells and cells infected by viruses. In fact, the killer cells' power against cancer cells was reduced by more than half. [Injecting morphine in other parts of the brain did not cause the dramatic drop in protection.][The damn article goes to lengths to avoid saying what region of the brain got the morphine.] Now that they've located a brain region where opiates act to depress the immune system, the researchers hope to begin tracing the lines of communication between the two. [A link between brain and the immune system.] [They're] trying to see what nerve circuits and chemical messengers do the talking.[56] Experiments. . .demonstrate that the brain sorts out the noises it hears by grouping together sounds that appear to come from the same direction, and that it accomplishes this by listening for high-pitched notes. Because high notes don't travel as far as low ones--which is why the bass drum of an oncoming marching band can be heard long before the piccolos--the brain assumes that the ear hearing the highest notes is closest to the musical source. Yet studies of music from around the world suggest that despite the ear's ability to make minute discriminations of sounds, most cultures divide the vast range of audible sounds into musical scales of only about five to seven notes. As with many mental processes involved in music, the brain's willingness to trade precision for generalization may help people adapt in other arenas: It explains, for example, why people can understand a person's speech even though it is heavily accented or recognize the aged face of a long-lost acquaintance. The brain's willingness to choose generalizations over precision is largely responsible for its uncanny ability to remember melodies. While few can rival Mozart, who is said to have been able to remember an entire symphony after hearing it only once, most everyone carries around dozens of tunes that have been learned effortlessly. Studies by Jay Dowling of the University of Texas at Dallas show that one key to remembering a melody is that instead of learning the exact sounds that make up a tune, the brain remembers only the relationship between the notes. The brain's quest to find overall patterns in the seemingly random world is evident in experiments by Deutsch that show that the mind will rearrange a jumble of notes it hears into familiar patterns. The brain's effort to tease out general patterns often takes place without a person even being aware of it. Psychologists have long known that as children develop they gradually construct a 'great chain of being' by which they divide objects in the world into such categories as inanimate and alive, mythic and real. Similarly, people learn their native tongue without explicitly learning the rules that govern that language.[57] In rats it's been shown that even if 85 percent of the liver is removed, the remainder can completely replenish itself. Humans have an equal potential.[58] Smell is the most evocative of the senses, because it's so intricately connected to the brain's limbic system, the area associated with emotion. Experiments in Japan with 13 keypunch operators, monitored eight hours a day for 30 days, showed that the average number of errors per hour dropped by 21 percent when office air was scented with lavender (it reduces stress) and by 33 percent when laced with jasmine (it induces relaxation); a stimulating lemon scent reduced errors by 54 percent. Even when the scent was below conscious levels, they reported feeling better than they did without it. You don't have to deliver fragrance all the time. Further research has shown chamomile, Japanese cypress, orange, peppermint, and eucalyptus to be soothing, while scarlet sage and rosemary are stimulating. The trigeminal nerve, one of two nerves in the nose that receive signals from smells. The olfactory nerve is the one that allows you to tell the difference between oranges and roses. The trigeminal nerve detects irritations, like smelling salts, or temperature, like the cooling effect of menthol. There's a tendency for aromas with a low trigeminal component to calm people and odors with a high trigeminal component to serve as pick-me-ups. That's because trigeminal stimulants. . .increase blood levels of adrenaline. Odor is. . .mediated by the area of the brain that also mediates sexual behavior, survival, and appetite.[59] A certain type of nerve cell--the neurons that produce luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, or LHRH. This hormone, among other things, sets puberty in motion: it stimulates the pituitary gland at the base of the brain to release gonadotropins, which in turn trigger the maturation and function of the testicles and ovaries. The cells [originated in the nose] and. . .then traveled along nerve pathways to the brain during embryological development. Found that in the area known as the olfactory pit, which is the precursor of the nose, LHRH cells begin to appear 11 and a half days after conception [in mouse embryos]. By the thirteenth day the calls, now numbering in the hundreds, have begun to creep along the arching pathway of the terminal nerve and its neighbor, the vomeronasal nerve, heading out of the nose toward the brain. By the sixteenth day, at the end of gestation, all but a few stragglers in the nose have completed their trek to the forebrain. [When this doesn't happen, all the nerves from the nose to the brain are blocked (including olfactory nerves, so no smell).] Pheromones are one of the major forms of sexual communication in such lowly creatures as insects. Researchers believe, pheromones latch onto receptors in the nose and transmit their. . .signals to the brain via the vomeronasal nerve. That's one of the nerves. . .that helps to steer the LHRH cells so crucial for sexual development on their trip to the embryonic brain.[60] Eating foods/drugs with Serotonin in them reduce compulsions. This study done for people with compulsive disorders. It may have potential for reducing peoples will as well however. Since the drug (a product of the brain) naturally reduces the brains desire to repeat (do) an act. Neurologists have been able to grow a form of the brain's nerve cells. [Brain] nerve cells cannot divide or regenerate. After about six months of gestation in the womb, the brain's 10 billion neurons, or nerve cells, cease growing. It was. . .finicky, slow-growing cells that [they were] able to cultivate. Eventually, the new cell line will be made widely available, allowing investigators to answer a host of biochemical questions about the brain. The neurons appear normal except for the growth abnormality that allows them to proliferate in the lab. [Neurologists] can coax them into developing the elongated, branched shape of mature nerves.[61] [Umbilical] cord blood, which is usually discarded after a baby is delivered, is a rich source of blood cells. It was long suspected to contain stem cells, the immature cells that after birth reside only in bone marrow and give rise to all blood cells. Finally the blood from his sister's cord was slowly dripped into his veins. Her stem cells did the rest; they found their way to the marrow cavities inside his bones and gradually multiplied into a new blood-cell population. A year later [the patient] had a new, functioning blood system.[62] The all crucial blood-brain barrier seems about to open up to drugs. The potentials are outrageous, as we've been able to get few chemicals into the brain. It's a necessary development and it looks to be progressing. The barrier is made up of endothelial cells, whose job it is to sort out blood and prevent unwanted materials from getting through. However, many drugs already breach this barrier: narcotics, nicotine, alcohol, etc. At a few spots in the brain the barrier does loosen up a bit, allowing the nerve fibers in those places to sample the bloodstream directly. Robert Katzman, a neurologist at the University of California at San Diego, points out that capillaries are permeable right atop the brain stem region called the area postrema--right where the vomiting center is located. 'The nerve cells there must be able to monitor the blood for the presence of deadly poisons,' he explains, 'in which case it would induce the body to start vomiting.' Still, as researchers now know, even an intact barrier can be penetrated. Because endothelial cells have membranes made of lipids, or fat molecules, there is one class of compounds--fat-soluble ones--that will skate through the endothelium every time. That's why nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, and the like get into the brain so quickly: these fat-soluble substances just dissolve through the endothelium's fatty membranes. Drugs that have turned out to be useful for mental illness, such as tricyclic antidepressants and the sedatives Thorazine and Valium, are also lipid-soluble. [The brain] demands a steady infusion of glucose--the brain's sole source of energy--and will lapse into unconsciousness if completely deprived of the sugar for more than a few seconds. It also needs amino acids to build proteins within neurons, and small, carefully controlled amounts of iron to aid cell metabolism.[63] Statistics of a study show that there is a dramatic drop in death rates just before an anticipated date and a dramatic rise (both with regard to the average death rate) after the day. This suggests that those on or near their deathbed hold off death until after the anticipated day (or event). Whether through sheer force of will or an adrenalin rush or something else isn't known. But this does look like proof of a link between ones conscious desires and the body's various systems (subconscious, immune, etc.) Where you're invoking will and desire to overcome impending death, then dying when you relinquish the desire (completed the task, celebrated the event, etc.)[65] The rostral ventromedial medulla is the area of the brain known to govern pain perception. Pain perception is relative to individuals (eg. when is warm water too hot, etc.) Researchers found two cells, those that fired when there was pain, those that fired when there was none. They also found that morphine turned the Pain cells off and turned the No- Pain cells on. These Pain cells are being called On-Cells. The No-Pain cells seem to turn off when there is pain, and On-Cells seem to be used to hurry (to booster) the message about the pain down the thought path. In both cases it was a group of cells that are represented - so we don't have just one pain cell for each part of the body, we have a group (probably overlapping in functionality) for each little part. In times of stress, endorphines suppress pain -probably by suppressing the on-cells or keeping the No-Pain cells on. Naloxone reverses morphine's effects. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic.[66] When a pathogen--an infectious bug such as a virus or bacterium--invades the body, it is the immune system that first sounds the alarm: the invader is promptly grabbed by a large scavenger cell called a macrophage. The macrophage in turn presents the bug to a helper T cell, which signals that the noxious foreigner is indeed worth getting excited about. The macrophage then sets off a chain of events culminating in the activation of killer T cells that attack the intruder. This cascade is referred to as cell-mediated immunity. Meanwhile, a second form of defense, known as humoral immunity, is also set in motion: they help T cells stimulate yet another type of white blood cell--B cells--to divide, differentiate, and ultimately produce antibodies to the intruder. These in turn will grab hold of the infectious organism and immobilize it. To communicate with far-flung members, the immune system uses cytokines, chemical messengers that travel in the bloodstream and lymph fluid. Among the best known of these messengers are the interferons, which activate a type of white blood cell that fights viruses and cancer, and the interleukins, which are central to the T cell cascade. The interleukin of greatest interest to us here is called IL-1; its principal job is to carry the alarm message from the macrophage (where it is made) to the T cells. But we begin to feel crummy because that is not all that IL-1 can do; it can also influence the brain. Most dramatically, this interleukin alters temperature regulation. [causes fevers] A part of our brain called the hypothalamus functions much like a thermostat. Normally it is set for 98.6 degrees. If body temperature drops below that, you shiver to generate heat, divert blood from the periphery of your body to vital organs, and pile on the blankets. Temperatures above 98.6 cause you to sweat and breathe faster to dissipate heat. What IL-1 does is cause the set point to shift upward. In other words, you begin to feel cold at 98.6, the various warming responses kick in and a new equilibrium is reached at a higher temperature. You are now running a fever. [corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF)] This substance runs the body's hormonal response to stress by initiating a cascade of signals going from the hypothalamus to the pituitary gland, and from there to the adrenal glands, which prepare you for an emergency. CRF blocks energy storage: it inhibits the process by which the body stores fat as triglycerides and sugar as glycogen. Dampens appetite, sexual drive, and reproductive processes. There are nerve pathways coming from various outposts in your body--from the surface of your skin to deep within your muscles and tendons--that carry pain messages to your spinal cord; these messages are then relayed to the brain, which interprets them as painful. Subtle stimuli will not cross a pathway's activation threshold. They will not be perceived as pain unless the threshold is lowered. And that's exactly what IL-1 does; it makes the neurons along the pathway more excitable, inclined to react to things they would normally ignore. Suddenly, your joints hurt, old injuries ache again, your eyeballs throb. Biologists have learned a bit about just how IL-1 triggers these crummy symptoms. The chemical binds to receptors on the surfaces of those neurons that play a role in perceiving pain, regulating temperature, and releasing CRF. That, in turn, switches on the synthesis of prostaglandins, compounds that act as signals inside the cell to change temperature set points and sensitivity to pain messages. As it happens, one of the most effective drugs for blocking prostaglandin synthesis is aspirin. CRF also causes stored energy to be released, returning fuel in the form of fat and sugar to the bloodstream. When a noxious agent is first spotted in the body, macrophages secrete a second cytokine along with IL-1. In addition to its role as an immune system messenger, this cytokine blocks the ability of fat cells to store fat. This chemical has been dubbed cachectin. The immune system works better when you are running a fever. Studies show that T cells multiply more readily and antibody production is stepped up. A fever puts many pathogens at a disadvantage. A wide variety of viruses and bacteria multiply most efficiently at temperatures below 98.6 degrees. But as a fever is induced, their doubling time slows. In some cases the pathogens stop dividing entirely.[67] I've noticed that the immune system seems weakest during change in temperatures. Example, you are most likely to get colds at the start and end of winter. As if the immune system is in the process of shifting gears and is reorganizing itself. Although most likely it's just a case of readjusting to the virus's that appear in the different seasons. Brain physiological development. Does all life have the same type of basic brain building blocks. Are our brain cells more efficient, ie. has then been any evolution of the basic structures of the brain (neurons, etc.) If so, we can probably predict future development and anticipate how that type of brain would think. Brain tissue regeneration with chemicals or biologicals are not serious. Little machines doing repairs may also not be serious. Serious: growth of duplicate, or growth of standard and molded to duplicate. Brain cell replacements. - again the question of "human soul". Brain is not effected by growth hormones.[68] The Mind knows how the mind operates.[69] Perhaps repeating a thought over and over allows access to forgotten memory on that thought subject. Like blowing up one of those long thin balloons. Every cell in a plant, unlike the cells of humans or other mammals, retains the ability to produce anything that the rest of the plant can produce. A vanilla plant cell doesn't have to be in a bean to produce vanilla; it just has to receive the right chemical signals to tell it to do so.[70] At the end of 1982 a team of Japanese researchers had reported that a toxin in the venom of a spider native to Japan--the Joro spider--blocked the effects of the chemical glutamate in squid nerve cells. Glutamate is an amino acid and an important excitatory neurotransmitter. These transmitters are fired from one cell to another in the central nervous system. The second cell receives the glutamate signal with molecular receptors, and as it does so channels in the cell wall at these receptor sites are prompted to open. The channels are like canals, and when they open, electrically charged atoms, or ions, flow in, causing the second cell to fire its own chemical signal. Glutamate is quite abundant in the brain, so researchers have been extremely interested in how it works. ...researchers know that glutamate plays a major role in causing cell death after stroke. A stroke occurs when a blood clot blocks oxygen from getting to a part of the brain. Immediately after a stroke the cells that have been deprived of oxygen are weakened. Then they are overwhelmed by a cascade of biochemical events, including a flood of glutamate. The glutamate opens up a bunch of channels, admitting ions that send the weakened cell into a frenzy of activity. The stress on the already-damaged cell is too much; it exhausts itself and then dies. If response to this glutamate flood could be blocked, however, weakened cells would have a chance to recuperate before being bullied by the neurotransmitters' demands they get back to work. A similar excess of glutamate seems to cause certain hard-to-control epileptic seizures. Again, these seizures are produced by overactive cells. some experimental drugs that block glutamate receptors have proved effective in reducing these seizures in lab animals. Several years ago, with the help of a funnel-web spider's toxin, neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinas of New York University medical Center was able to identify a new type of calcium channel. Llinas has spent 20 years studying the Purkinje cell, a key nerve cell found in the cerebellum. The cerebellum is the part of the brain responsible for coordinating muscle movements; it keeps the swing of a tennis racket or the glide of a dancer's step smooth and fluid. In the mid- 1970s Llinas and his colleague Mutsuyuki Sugimori discovered that calcium is essential for a Purkinje cell to function normally. They also found that calcium entered the Purkinje cell through dendrites, the spiny filaments that fan up and out like tree branches from the Purkinje cell's body. But the researchers couldn't say precisely how the calcium entered or exactly where in the dendrites it slipped though. Jackson discovered almost accidentally that certain funnel-web spider venoms contained toxins that block calcium channels. Llinas heard about Jackson's work and decided to test one of these venoms on Purkinje cells. First Llinas placed guinea pig Purkinje cells in a bath of calcium ions. As he expected, calcium ions rushed into the cells. The he introduced a fragment of the venom to the bath. Suddenly calcium could no longer enter. The fragment did exactly what Llinas hoped--it blocked the new Purkinje calcium channel like a stopper plugging a bathtub drain. In 1987 Llinas named the new channel the P-channel. After running the venom fragment through a chemical sorting system and dividing it into its component toxins, Llinas and his colleagues were able to zero in on the toxin that blocked the calcium channel and then identify the toxin's chemical composition. Such drugs could help prevent the kind of cell death that follows injury to the cerebellum and leads to loss of muscle control in accident victims.[71] Enzymes are the mob enforcers of the biochemical world. They are big, brutish protein molecules that grab hold of other molecules and give them a chemical beating to loosen up their components. Like all proteins, enzymes are composed of various arrangements of molecular building blocks called amino acids, which are themselves composed of various arrangements of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen atoms. Every enzyme is designed to fit snugly around a particular molecule, which may be another protein, a carbohydrate, a nucleic acid, or any other type of molecule that's found in living organisms. When an enzyme encounters its target molecule, it partially engulfs it, then bends and twists it in an electrostatic bear hug that weakens its bonds enough that it can form new bonds with yet another molecule and create something new in the process. Sometimes the target is more than twisted--it's shattered, and its components give rise to two or more new molecules. The enzyme, having little affinity for these new molecules, then drifts off in search of another victim.[72] 'Retinoic acid is well known to have striking effects on cell differentiation,' says Degos. It is the active ingredient in acne treatments such as Retin-A, which work in part by speeding up the maturation of skin cells, thus encouraging the replacement of inflamed cells with healthy ones. When Degos added a synthetic retinoic acid called all-trans to leukemic cells in test tubes, he found that it did indeed cause some cancerous cells to differentiate and die. The most striking results were with acute promyelocytic leukemia, so-called because it attacks young white blood cells called promyelocytes. Impressed by the test-tube results, Wang returned to Shanghai, obtained all-trans pills from a local pharmaceutical factory, and began giving them to his promyelocytic leukemia patients. part of his motivation may well have been hope: in a country where medical resources are limited, such a treatment is appealing in its modesty. Not even Wang, though, could have dared hope for such results. This type of leukemia is usually devastating: in the United States 1,500 people are afflicted each year, and only one in three survives. But according to Wang's first report, 23 out of 24 patients getting all-trans enjoyed complete remission. 'Wang called and told me the news,' Degos recalls. 'So in 1987 I went to China. He gave me some of his pills, and i returned home to treat my own patients.' (The pills were easier to get in China than in the West; because all- trans pills are not patentable, drug companies here were reluctant to make them.) Dego's results were hardly less astonishing: 75 percent of his patients on all-trans showed no signs of cancer within three months. Some patients who seemed cancer-free have relapsed after 2 to 18 months. For unknown reasons, Degos says, 'cells seem to develop a resistance to retinoic acid.' What's more, it's still not clear why the drug works only with promyelocytic leukemia, or even precisely how it works in the body, although Degos is convinced that it forces the cells to grow up, just as in his test tubes. 'We can clearly see the diseased cells mature,' he says. 'Once that happens, they die and the cells are replaced by normal cells.'[73] Human brains must dream to reorganize, to get rid, periodically, of knots and snarls.[74] Self Secrets to better memory: Improvement 1. Use association for the objects/names you're trying to remember, associate it with something you already know. 2. Use "wild" assoications--nonstandard stuff like relating the object to some odd actions (cow jumping over the moon), etc. 3. Use "similar" relations: doctor's name, something doctors/hospitals use with a similar name. These methods take work to use. Perhaps the concentration alone used in the process will provide better memory.[129] 22 A study concludes that watching television actually reduces 22 the body's metabolic rate, reducing energy consumption by up 22 to 16% (in a study of 8-to-12 year-old girls) over that of 22 resting.[144] The study doesn't suggest it, but I suspect 22 it's the strobing effect of the television. It sort of 22 hypnotises people into relaxing--or somesuch, since trying to 22 communicate with a person deep into watching TV usually 22 agitates them. I suspect this will disappear with LCD TV's. 22 Another effect I've noticed is that watching TV tires a 22 person out. Perhaps this, and the slowing of the body, are 22 related--since the mind is working overtime or somesuch. 24 It's the weekend, and you're looking forward to sleeping 24 in. But when 7 A.M. rolls around, your eyes pop open. 24 The reason, researchers are now saying, is that you hav 24 an alarm clock in your brain. That metaphorical ringing 24 in your head emanates from two teardrop-shaped clumps of 24 neurons (one in each hemisphere of the brain) called the 24 superchiasmatic nuclei, or SCNs. In recent years 24 researchers have come to realize that tese little clumps- 24 -each of which contains just 8,000 to 10,000 neurons-- 24 send out the signals that generate our circadian rhythms: 24 the daily flucuations in body temperature and behavior 24 such as eating and drinking. But until now, nobody 24 understood just how the SCNs are able to control the 24 best-known circadian rhythm--the sleep-wak cycle. [Dale 24 M.] Edgar and his colleagues took ten adult male squirrel 24 monkeys and obliterated both SCNs in five of them. 'All 24 the animals were happy and healthy, playing in their 24 cages,' he reports, 'but the ones without the biological 24 clock catnapped all day long.' Normal squirrel monkeys 24 stay awake all day and alternate between sleep and 24 wakefulness at night, but ofr the clockless monkeys, the 24 distinction between day and night had been obliterated 24 along with their SCNs. They had lost the ability to stay 24 awake for more than an hour or two at a time. Clearly, 24 then, the SCNs' job in squirrel monkeys, and presumably 24 in us, is not to promote sleep. Instead, says Edgar, the 24 SCNs function as an alarm clock--one that wakes us in the 24 morning and then keeps buzzing softly all day long to 24 keep us alert. That alarm clock, he thinks, does 24 constant battle with a second signal, a sleep signal, 24 whose source has yet to be found. the squirrel monkeys 24 that lacked SCNs were at the mercy of this second signal: 24 they could wake up when their sleep drive had been 24 satisfied but would succumb again to the slightest hing 24 of sleepiness.[148] 24 If we conquer this, what then? is sleep just to preserve 24 energy, or is it to "rebalance" the body? Certainly dreaming 24 and sleeping are enjoyable. The article doesn't say whether 24 the monkeys could control/resist sleep for such things as 24 emergency stuff (like when hanging from a tree limb). This 24 will be interesting to follow--see what the results are for 24 eliminating that second sleep driver. 25 There are two things I that keep popping--both I think were 25 heard on the show SuperSense. The first is "nature always 25 pushes the limits"--meaning evolution and population growth 25 of a species. The species will keep expanding until some of 25 the species are dying from lack of resources/extreme 25 conditions/etc.--the limits. The second is the relationship 25 between sense of time, life length, speed, and how fast your 25 heart beats. The relationship was just that: the faster your 25 heart beats, the shorter you live (all life has about the 25 same number of heartbeats over their lifetime), the slower 25 the world and the faster you appear. That is, a fly, which 25 beats 300 per minute, is very fast to us, we are very slow to 25 it, and it only lives 3 weeks. An elephant, which beats 25 25 per minute, lives 80 years. It explains, for instance, why 25 things (such as accidents) appear in slow motion as they 25 happen--it's because that person's heart rate has speeded, so 25 the world has slowed down. Recently in an interview, John 25 Olerud (of Toronto Blue Jays) says "it's like I'm seeing the 25 ball is in slow motion"--that tells you that when he's at bat 25 that his heart rate is speeding up. In the future they'll 25 probably teach this technique in all sports--but remember, it 25 will probably reduce their lives by that much as well. The 25 TV series "Time Trax" also claims that in the future this 25 will be generally taught--the character uses these "when 25 desired I speed up" abilities for fighting or looking at 25 things in slow motion. Thus, it's another skill--but perhaps 25 a skill with a cost. I say perhaps because in 40 years we 25 may have death conquered--so the sacrifice for success now 25 may be worth the risk. So, when you want to cocentrate and 25 slow the world down--take a few quick breaths to speed up 25 your heart. The L. Ron Hubbard suggested that various detrimental emotional Multi- stimuli reduced the brains' functioning. This was the point Tasking on which his entire belief structure was based. It was the Brain seed for the ideas of this section. The human brain. Actually, the human mind. What Hubbard didn't know about was multitasking--a computer's ability to do multiple tasks concurrently. It is how our brain works. This multitasking as I like to call it has also been called parallel processing. I don't like the term parallel processing because it suggests that all processes get the same amount of execution resources. Why do I think the human brain is multitasking? Yes we have many thoughts, but the brain could just be breaking up it's time between thoughts (ie. thinking about A for a second, then about B for a second, then about A for a second, etc.). My belief is based on the evidence we have so far concerning such things as the autonomous system (controls the hum-drum aspects of the body) and the various illnesses that lead to lack of control of various body and/or thought processes, that is, total control isn't lost. We think of things, but mostly one thought is dominant, but always the others are there. Some of these other "waiting" thoughts we are aware of, some we aren't. Simple examples include worrying/planning about the near future while doing some current task. The way I picture it is as a "tunnel of thought." In which all input (senses/conclusions/etc.) goes through the entire tunnel. The conscious is only aware of the major "holes" in this tunnel. Smaller thoughts are laced along the sides--ready to expand to fill a large portion of the tunnel should the conscious suddenly demand it's attention. Example, the brain is thinking about X, Y, and Z, and the conscious is thinking about A. The tunnel of thought would have something like a 90% sub-tunnel for A and 3% each of X, Y, and Z. X, Y, and Z can be many things (covered later) including the autonomous functions. This cross-width of these sub-tunnels (eg. 90%) should be thought of as percentage of brain processing power and resources dedicated to the thought. Pattern recognition is a fundamental part of the brain. I believe one's spatial abilities (ability to view objects in space) account for the strength of one's pattern recognition. Note that I am saying nothing about memory here. The eye sees an object, the brain analyzes the object, identifies it, and if the conscious or subconscious requests the information, provides information about the object. We don't consciously name every object we see, it just "pops into our brain." Only if it involves wonderment or curiosity do we do an analysis of what we are seeing ("trying to figure it out"). Whether it be a type of car or the controls of a VCR, it's all spatial analysis. The same skills are used in problem solving, like figuring out what an object is we also consciously create objects in our mind that we call problems. Just like rotating a chair in "mind space," we rotate problems to work out their solutions. Problems "hover" before us, begging for our attention. What happens when we can't solve problems? They get shoved off to the side, BUT ARE STILL THERE! What happens is that they get a greatly reduced percentage of processing capabilities, but they still get all the input (as do all of the sub-processes ("sub-tunnels" from before). Lay back and relax. . .notice how thoughts slowly crowd each other out for the conscious' attention, with little or no conscious effort on your part to do so. The solving of problems involves pattern recognition. As input comes in, each sub-process is examining it looking for a fuzzy match. When it finds one, it announces itself to the conscious. At that point, you "suddenly realize" or "had an insight" about the problem. It's not a subconscious that solved the problem using the brains' resources. Just a simple pattern that happened to meet some old thought requirements. An example: remembering a previous thought you had about a place or a person that you suddenly recall when you see the place or person. Until that moment, you lacked realization about a question or note (questions and notes are both unmet desires) about the subject. While you could say that the brain had stored the thought previously in that person or place's "memory file" and that the subconscious drew it out because the object was recognized and prepared to give the conscious the data and that since it was an unmet desire it had the highest buildup "connect tissue" (whatever the brain uses to emphasize thoughts and connections, that speed up chemical mentioned elsewhere). The fault with this is the problem solving. Just as a person's or place's data suddenly announces itself, so does solutions to problems. Memory doesn't work independently on problems, it's a storage only area. Advertisers use this. They don't hope you'll rush out and buy their product when you see the ad. They hope that next time you're shopping you'll think about their products and perhaps buy it. That is, the goal of advertising is to keep a tiny fraction of your brain thinking about their product-- which it does. The same applies to desires, "gee I would like a stadium-type hotdog" long after you forgot the desire your brain is still pattern matching--looking for either the hotdog or an alternative. An analogy: A large company in which the dedicated employees are all in sync with the boss. When he wants something done, they all work on it. At the same time each employee is also trying to please the boss. So one hot day, while everyone is working on a major project, the boss announces on the loud speaker, "it sure is hot, wish I had a soda." Immediately everyone is thinking about pleasing the boss by getting a soda. The boss notices the work slowdown, and announces "get back to work." So they return to work--except [perhaps] a few [0...n] already made it out the door and are looking for a soda for the boss. Repeatedly/recursively. One of the secrets, I think, of doing the type of analyzing and guessing I do is related to spatial ability. For instance, when I'm trying to solve a problem I imagine myself in the situation. Then a small fraction of my brain continues to imagine itself there as I go through life--this small fraction of the brain is comparing and looking at what I see and refitting it into the imaginary I created. Looking for familiarities and things that "belong." It's one of those bothersome things, answers to questions popping in my head long after I forget [to think about consciously] the question. Like remembering what you did on an exam question long after you've graduated and forgotten the course. These unsolved patterns build up. They wear on the brains' resources. They probably go away after a while, but I don't know what would be the "after a while" factors, perhaps simply because they aren't looked at (the brain decays brain cells that aren't used, just like RAM or magnetic media--but not in the sense that the more you use it the more it's quality declines, quite the opposite). Getting rid of this was Hubbard called "clearing." You got rid of old worry's that wore on the resources. The way to excise these excess users is to solve them. Note- takers, notice that feeling of accomplishment/etc. when you can crumple up a note, the brain feels it's the same for any conclusion that has been sitting around, including those waiting in the brain. For things like commercial riffs or sayings that just seem to keep popping up, I've found that Hubbard's idea of thinking it repeatedly seems to work. As if that satisfy's the brains desire for it. We seem to "get our fill" of things after a while that this suggests some sort of basic design feature (to protect against getting into a rut/depression?). Or perhaps part of the multitasking time is needed to memorize and this is what is going on. Yet this also doesn't satisfactorily explain why song riff's from songs (new and old) seem to just pop-up. They aren't problems that needed solution (although if an emotional factor does play a part this might be where it comes in. This may suggest a spatial music link?) Concentration is probably the ability to expand the conscious thought of something to use more of resources ("expand the cross-section"). What's interesting is that it seems one can't recall some puzzles the brain is also working on. Perhaps the conscious has priority during the day, and the subconscious reviews and passes though the unanswered questions the days input while the conscious sleeps. I doubt it. More likely the conscious (when sleeping) gets squashed down into a smaller cross- sections and the others expanded. Then all is mixed and the brain's imagination creates things that are run though as input to see what happens. When a close match appears, a dream is born. This doesn't explain why some dreams repeat themselves though. This document tosses everything together and waits for patterns to match also. When a match is found, a tiny paragraph can expand into a dozen pages. We are parallel processing beings. While the cognitive part of our brain is worrying about something, another part of our brain is concentrating on walking. There is yet a third part- -the subconscious brain; I suspect that this is the part that gives entertainment while we sleep. This part of the brain has the same access to everything just as the cognitive part does. It thinks, solving problems/etc., while our consciousness works on another thought. As evidence it often makes itself known by a sudden rejection. For example, once while watching tv, a person on tv says something about something, instantly I KNOW they are wrong. A gut feeling of major order, the information about why they are wrong is not yet in the cognitive part of my brain. In these situations I have trouble calling up the proof of why the remark was wrong (so perhaps data is not parallel accessible). The feeling is both strong that I am correct in my response and that the reasoning behind it is also sound--that there simply is not any doubt. With realization I also can analyze the periphery of the argument (that is, it would be true, if this and that conditions were met). Usually I do not care to review why its wrong (rechecking whether anything conflicts with it), the feeling is strong and usually pointing in the direction (for example, philosophy) to which both their argument applies and solution found. A little complex, a closer example. When told that a governor can rewrite laws sent to him into anything he wants. Instantly I realize that he can become a dictator. I then realize that he can become a dangerous dictator if he is evil. Then the brain kicks in with the logic: no matter what the present governor is like, a future governor will undoubtedly be evil, therefore he must be stopped now, his new-found powers must be eliminated. At this point let's review my belief's in the mind's functioning: I believe in the subconscious (it solve's problems that I have and "pop's" the answer at me when it comes to a conclusion). Neural connector's are made "thicker"/"stronger" with use. That is, the more you use a neural link the faster and more durable it is. Such as skills, athletics, etc. After all, muscles get finer tuned by doing an action repetitively, but still requires the increasingly better coordination the brain gives with practice. Thought- This section will try to figure out the methodology the brain Process uses in thinking, and how to improve it. "Fuzzy Windows." A term used to describe how the AI program Cyc sees and analyzes information. Each window is a descriptor block of data describing some object/concept/etc. The article I got this from was about Doug Lenat's Cyc project.[75] What I thought of when I read Fuzzy Windows was your standard advertisement of a program, with windows all over it (like desqview ad's). And said, "Aha", fuzzy = % of overlay between 2+ windows. These windows aren't picture windows, they're data windows - so what is actually overlaid (and contained in the "windows") are the data structures of the objects (the descriptor fields). Sticking with the visual image; when you put up LOTS of windows of various sizes you get a mess. Visualize it in 3D, instead of windows use 2D boxes in 3D space (imagine depth on your computer screen). Routes of commonality or analogic when connected by a line would appear (could appear) remarkably like lines in space of a galactic trader's trade route (the path their ship needs to take). What I'm talking about is how to view commonality of knowledge. We have all this information, and we link it with "threads" when looking for connections. At each node (data area) is a vector that points to the next thread - via fuzzy logic probably. Example, you own a Ford Taurus, you think "car"; your brain locates the data area that contains "car," from there are links (vectors) to Ford, GM, etc. as well as brand names, and probably much more. The strongest link will be to something like Ford Taurus, Taurus, or My Car--it will be the first thing that comes to your consciousness. It's the turning/spinning/rotating of this 3D space, with all it's boxes, that help us find new or existing connections. All part of the brain's pattern recognition heuristics. Another interesting point this article made is that all objects are events. They have a start time, an existence length, and a leave time. It also suggests that rather than working holistically on information, the brain has hundreds of specialized areas where data and specific (task related) functions are stored (perhaps to reduce number of "ticks" conscious and subconscious need at every moment?) This document for instance is for the most part holistic-- bits of related data are scattered all about. It's a trade- off. The more compartmentalized the easier to read. The more holistic, the easier to find interrelations. The brain polls the rest of the brain via a wave of question. This "wave of question" is a pattern of neurotransmitters, in which a match is sought. Each neuron is asked, "what do you know of/about/relating to this." They send back a fuzzy response. The polling results are prioritized according to their fuzzy level. Then the consciousness is sent info about those neurons. From which we make the selection about which neuron to follow. As the wave washes over the brains receptors, those receptors do a similar fuzzy scan of their data areas (the scan is a pattern--the fuzzy response is a percentage of match). Perhaps better access to memories is due to the concentration your brain uses while talking to others. The brain's pattern recognition abilities are based on the templates you've built up through experience. New studies and questions create their own templates to be compared against in the future. Thought- For lack of a better word, I've merged two. This section Speech deals with understanding how the brain communicates with itself--it's language. The purpose is to eventually use your brain to understand itself and to improve your conscious level processing speed. Or at least better eavesdrop on what's happening. Eg. if code is binary and think binary? Jack Womack has an interesting book, ~Terraplane~, he uses a writing style that could be a good basis for what "thought- speech" might sound like. [[examples]] Running words together like German. 24 Minsky Apprentice: Why are these humans so quarrelsome? Even 24 Knows their so-called entertainments are mostly fights 24 disguised as plays an games and sports. 24 Surveyor: This is because they were never designed; they 24 evolved by competing tooth and claw. Evolution on Earth 24 is still mainly based on the competition of separate 24 genes. 24 A: Their genetic systems can't yet share their records of 24 accomplishments? How unbelievably primitive! I suppose 24 that keeps them from being concerned with time scales 24 longer than their individual lives. 24 S: We ought to consier fixing this--but perhaps they will 24 do it themselves. Some of their computer scientists are 24 already simulating 'genetic algoithms' that incorporate 24 acquired characteristics. But speaking of evolution, I 24 hope you appreciate this unique opportunity: it was pure 24 luck to discover this planet now. We have long believed 24 that all intelligent machines evolved from biologicals, 24 but we have never before observed the actual transition. 24 Soon these people will replace themselves with machines-- 24 or destroy themselves entirely. 24 A: What a tragic waste that would be! 24 S: Not when you consider the alternative. All machine 24 civilizations like ours have learned to know and fear the 24 exponential spread of uncontrolled self-reproduction. 24 That's why we cower between the galaxies to hide 24 ourselves from living things--just as the human writer 24 Gregory Benford supposed. 24 A: But why does Council consider humans especially 24 dangerous? 24 S: Because of their peculiarly short life-times. We 24 think they are so willing to fight because they have so 24 little to lose. 24 A: Then why don't they place more importance on attaining 24 immortality? Surely it ought to e easy enough to make 24 all their parts replaceable. 24 S: The problem is psychological. They have always 24 assumed that personal death was in the very nature of 24 things. Most of their recorded history describes how 24 their leaders always invented imaginary superbeings. 24 Then, instead of trying to solve the hard technical 24 problems, those leaders convinced their followers that 24 simply believing in those marvelous tales would endow 24 them with everlasting life--wheeas disbelief would be 24 punished by death. Several of their governments would 24 collapse without that threat. There are many things 24 wrong with their reasoning. 24 A: You must admit that they've made scientific progress 24 recently. 24 S: But how long will that last? They've often advanced 24 and then fallen back. Even now astrology is more widely 24 believed in than astronomy. 24 A: Surely, though, we must regard them as intelligent. 24 Despite their faults, they've already built some simple 24 computers--and I've overheard them arguing about whether 24 machines could ever thing. 24 S: Hmph. It is our job to find out if they can think. 24 But I'll grant that it's amazing how much they can do, 24 considering that their brain cells compute only a few 24 hundred steps per second. 24 A: Yet in spite of this they can recognize a friend in 24 less than half a second--or understand a languae phrase, 24 or notice that a shoe is untied. How can they react so 24 rapidly when their internal components are so slow? 24 S: Obviously by preparing most of their behavior in 24 advance. It is almost as though they operate by looking 24 up what to do next in a very big instruction book. If 24 each reaction must be based on only a few internal steps, 24 their brains must be dependent on large libraries of 24 programmed rules. 24 A: That might explain why they have such large heads. 24 But how do they choose which rule to use? 24 S: By using parallel pattern matching. Several times per 24 second, the brain compares the present situation with 24 patterns stored in memory. Then it uses the pattern that 24 best matches in order to access the reaction script that 24 has most often worked in similiar situations. 24 A: That must be what their psychologists mean when they 24 speak about "schemes" or "production rules." 24 S: Precisely. Of course, machines like us need not 24 resort to any such coarse-grained pattern tricks. Our S- 24 matrix processors are more than fast enough to examine 24 each memory in full detail. This enables us to focus 24 full attention on each stop of the process, with ample 24 time to think about what our minds have recently done. 24 But if humans work the way we think they do, they have no 24 time left for consciousness. 24 A: Not a good sign. If we can't conclude that they're 24 self-aware, the Council will find them unworthy of 24 rights. But surely this can't be the case--they talk 24 about consciousness all the time. 24 S: Yes, but they use the word improperly. After all, 24 consciousness means knowing what's been happening in your 24 mind. And although humans claim that they're self-aware, 24 they have scarcely a clue about what their minds do. 24 They don't seem to have the faintest idea about how they 24 construct their new ideas or how they choose words and 24 form them into sentences. Instead they say, "Something 24 just occured to me"--as though someone else had done it 24 to them. 24 A: I'm afraid I have to agree with you. If they have 24 consciosness at all, it does seem too shallow to be of 24 much use. But what could have made them evolve that way? 24 S: It's because of the way they started out. To make up 24 for the slow speed of their neurons, their brains evolved 24 to use parallel distributed processing. In other words, 24 most of their decisions are made by adding up the outputs 24 of thousands of brain cells-and most brain cells are 24 involved in thousands of different types of decisions. 24 A: So ach operation is distributed over many brain cells? 24 I suppose that helps them keep going when some of the 24 brain cells fail to work. 24 S: That's the good news. The bad news is that the 24 trillions of snapses involved in this make it almost 24 impossible for the other parts of their brain to figure 24 out how those decisions are made. As far as their 24 higher-level reasoning can tell, those decisions just 24 happen--without any cause. 24 A: Is that what they refer to as "free will"? 24 S: Precisely. It means not knowing what your reasons 24 are. Another bad feature of distributed computers is 24 that they have trouble doing more than one thing at a 24 time. It is a basic principle of computer science that 24 the more interconnections there are between the parts of 24 a system, the fewer different things it will be able to 24 do concurrently. 24 A: Pardon me, but I don't follow that. Are you 24 suggesting that the more parallel operations are used 24 inside a machine, the more serial it will seem from the 24 outside? 24 S: I could not have said it more clearly myself. To see 24 why, suppose that a certain task involves two different 24 kinds of sub-jobs. If we want to do them simultaneously, 24 we'll have to run their programs and their data in two 24 separate places, to keep them from interfering with each 24 other. Similarly, if each of those jobs splits into sub- 24 sub-jobs, those must each be solved with only a quarter 24 of the avilable resources. And so on. Total 24 fragmentation. Eventually, the sub-sub-sub-jobs will end 24 up with no place to work. A purely parallel machine must 24 stop at some limit of complexity--whereas a serial 24 computer will simply slow down. 24 A: That's funny. Most of the computer experts on Earth 24 seem to think that "parallel" and "distributed" go 24 together. Do you suppose they'll ever evolve out of this 24 predicament? 24 S: Not by themselves. Of course, we could try to help 24 them along, but I fear there is no simple fix. We'd have 24 to rebuild them from the ground up. I don't think the 24 council would go for that. No, I am still not convinced 24 that peple can think. For example, consider their short- 24 term memory. A typical human has no trouble remembering 24 a local phone number, but if you add an area code, they 24 try desperately to write it down before they forget it. 24 Evidently they can remember seven numbers but not ten. 24 A: Why would they be so limited? 24 S: Probably because of their parallel distributed 24 processing. If each mental state is so widely spread 24 out, then each short-term memory unit would have to 24 involve an enormous, octopuslike system of tendrils. No 24 brain could afford to hold many of these. 24 A: Okay. But why don't healthy humans ever run out of 24 long-term memory? 24 S: Simply because they are so slow at learning. They can 24 store only one or two knowledge-chunks per second--that's 24 only two dozen million chunks per year. There's barely 24 time for a mere billion chunks before their bodies wear 24 out and die. 24 A: You keep mentioning death, but why do they consider 24 human lives to be so valuable? The only important thing 24 about an individual is its network of conceptual 24 relationships. Surely they must understand that any copy 24 is just as good as the original. 24 S: Apparently you have not grasped the pathos of this 24 tragedy. These creatures still have no way to copy 24 themselves. They can't even fabricate backup brains in 24 case of fatal accidents. All because they have no good 24 way to represent what they know. 24 A: But I thought they had developed good languages. 24 S: Some of their books do embody significant knowledge, 24 but most of them are little more than sequences of 24 fictional anecdotes about conflicts involving what they 24 call love and lust, ambition and gree, and harmony and 24 jealousy. Their so-called novels aren't novel at all but 24 mere permutations of those elements. The trouble is that 24 their time-sequential languages force them to squeeze 24 their parallel structures through narrow-band serial 24 channels. 24 A: Serial communication? They seem to have everything 24 upside down. Thinking, of course, should be serial--and 24 communication should be parallel. But how, then, do they 24 convert those sequences back into their original forms? 24 S: First they use what they call "grammar" to change them 24 into simple treelike structures. Then they use certain 24 terms called "pronouns" to make a few cross-links in 24 those trees. Naturally this leaves no room for nuances. 24 So they have to decode whatever they hear in terms of 24 things they already know. This can work ver well for 24 familiar things but makes it devilishly hard for them to 24 learn anything really new. 24 A: But language isn't everything. Shouldn't we give them 24 credit for explaining things with pictures too? They do 24 seem to have excellent senses. 24 S: That was my first impression as well--until I saw that 24 their TV sets use only three electron guns. Of course, 24 this means that they're virtually blind. Not only are 24 they confined to a single octave of optical frequencies, 24 but within that range they can discriminate only a three- 24 dimensional vector space. They badly need reengineering. 24 A: I have another question. Why are these people so 24 huge? Where is their nanotechnology? by all rights they 24 should be smaller than us, in view of their limited 24 memories--yet we weigh a hundred trillion times less. It 24 is expensive enough to send ourselves on these one-way 24 interstellar voyages, but humans are so massive that it 24 would be unthinkable to send one back--despite all their 24 stories in Weekly World News. 24 S: That is just another result of an early wrong turn in 24 evolution. Instead of using nanotechnological 24 assemblers, each animal on planet Earth must build itself 24 from the inside out. So every cell has to contain a 24 complete duplicate of the whole construction mechanism. 24 When the animals got too large to be nourished by 24 diffusion, they had to evolve all those pipes and pumps-- 24 which made them grow larger still.[149] ROBOTS AND Robots are devices such as factory arms and the Voyager ARTIFICIAL series. Artificial beings are made also, but are more BEINGS sentient and can be made of either metals, silicates, or synthetic organic-like structures. The questions are: When is a robot a human? Should we put controls on human-like robots? Since artificial beings probably will have a longer life span, its possible races abandon their organic form for their newly created one. Robot evolution is simple to predict. The basic robot design will continue to improve in smarts and ability. At some point we will want them to look like humans. At some further point we will give them emotion-like responses, since a robot without a face is, as a Doctor Who episode put it, "you never know what they are thinking behind that face." Robots probably should not be given control of their facial expressions when it comes to reactions. They should exhibit surprise, curiosity, fear, etc. After a time we will start to ask about their rights. Then those rights will be granted. A problem in this is that we would never tolerate a superior race (let alone one created by us). We would want to be at least equal. So, at what point should we stop and say no to robots? As I stated though, an artificial body is greatly desirable if yours is failing. This alone may promote the growth of robots. The direction to the robot race may not be as such though. It is possible that we "cyberneticize"/"cyborgnetize" ourselves until we are essentially like robots would be. The best solution I can see is the obvious one, we limit robot technology to the level of the biological/electronic limits of the time. If we develop a super smart "phase- tronic" brain (or something), then that brain must have no self-awareness and no imagination until we can enhance our own brains to the same computational level. In an increasing communication and computer operated society, super smart electronic beings that can undermine it all cannot be allowed. Remember ~RoboCop~. Isaac Asimov came up with these four laws that robots were to obey: 0) A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. 1) A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the Zeroth Law. 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law. 3) A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the Zeroth, First or Second Law. I have my doubts about these laws. You would really need a being with intelligence to interpret these laws. They may provide a basic symbolic pattern to begin what will surely be the difficult task of creating an intelligent being. I can never think of intelligent robots as anything other than another being (much like animals). Either we make "things" with computers to make them smart or we make human- like robots with smarts. To make an intelligent robot for nothing more than servitude is essentially slavery. [And what about a TV set with an incredible AI? Similar to problem of human brain in dog?] Asimov's books go into great depth concerning robots, unfortunately he puts these robots in ideal situations. They are an excellent place to start when considering what a life of an intelligent robot could/should be like. AI's not in robot form, but in portable form, are explained well in ~The War Machine~[76] In the book, AIDs (Artificial Intelligence Devices), contain a personality and are mainly used as a portable telephone to access information--but also as recorders, etc. They are programmed to inform the police when the user attempts something illegal. They also have programming concerning their survival. Since each unit contains a 'scram' button that 'kills' the AID when pressed, the AID must take this into account when deciding whether to be a blabbermouth. The cheap ones always complained to the police (much to the disgust of the overworked police). The more expensive ones realized the police tended to ignore the AID squealing and decided survival was more important. Does the no-two-clones at once rule apply for these AI devices or intelligent robots? They will no doubt have questions about themselves, but since they can't do anything without us maybe we shouldn't consider them an intelligence. Of course, on the other hand, people will become attached to them like they do their pets. [Technological parasites.] I mentioned that ants and plants should be considered biological machines. I've decided that on the other end, dogs (and cats, apes, etc.) should be considered sentient. That they should be thought of as a separate race and considered equal regarding all laws/dealing/etc. where ever possible. While we both share the planet, the fact they are severely underdeveloped technologically means we should exercise minimal contact-- each keeping to our own spheres. This is not a problem with cats/dogs/apes/chimps/etc. as they are all on the same technological level. Conclusion: any pets such as dogs and cats should be regarded as equals and given all the due protection under the law. Animal habitat zones should be set up which don't allow humans, and human zones should be set up which don't allow animals. Questions unanswered: pets like birds, pigs, horses, cows, etc. If insects and plants are machines, then we live on a piece of rock surrounded and supported by machines. What should happen if these machines decide to stop? Are we sure evolution created them? Possibility: dinosaurs ruled the land--were wiped out, replaced with insects and plants of the current order, then mammels were seeded to be grown. Making us scientifically grown intelligences. Intriguing. Idea stimulated by one of asimov's stories in Robot Dreams. As long as a life-form can EVENTUALLY grasp the design of the Universe, it must be considered sentient. Which pretty much means that it need only a brain that is changable--can adapt without evolving (like EPROM's). How good is this idea? I came across it almost similarly (although more subtle) in the book Transition. The author had an advanced race that went around and saved dying sentients. It had saved a couple of humans, a lot of "long horn cattle like creatures" and a lot of Meerkat's ("weasel like creaturs"). So, the lines of sentience are better defined. Of course, for those whom have forgotten why this matters: you should treat sentient races as you would expect other sentient races to treat you. The question left hanging: if a species has the potential (through evolution) to develop a "sentient brain", can it be considered sentient during that span in which it isn't? And what about a sentient being temporarily going into a non- sentient state (such as freezing/death), are they still sentient? The human We have a soul. You cannot make a perfect duplicate robot soul body and then transfer your mind, kill your body, and call the robot you in a new form. Since you both were alive. This goes all the way. You can create an artificial body with memory, autonomous system, language/math/skill sections, etc. But you will always need one crucial part from the original body. I don't know what that part is, but some part of the brain is absolutely necessary. This part can't be subdivided to create multiple robots. Cloning should be avoided. You don't want a duplicate, you want a true new body. Just because you've created another you, doesn't mean you'll exist after the true body is dead. You're still just as dead. If cloned, you may ask, what does it matter if the original body died? After all, your personality, goals, beliefs, feelings, etc. survive in the new body. In which you still think you're you. So, cloning will continue "you" in others eyes. The original "you" died. Example: If you draw a line on a paper, you have a line. You erase the line, and redraw the line so it is identical. If a viewer doesn't know that the original line was erased, they think the new line was the original line. In fact it isn't. It's a new line. It's a point of imperfection. It is almost impossible to make a truly exact duplicate. If you die, or are destroyed, and some hyper-advanced being comes along and reproduces you to exact perfection. You are again. If some hack comes along and clones you, you might just as well accept the new life, but realize that you aren't the person you were before. [Note, need to cross this with teleportation.] Yes, brain matter must first be installed in robots to extend life this way. What about when we can so thoroughly understand the underlying structure that we duplicate it perfectly? Then it becomes a philosophical matter and the rule still applies. The main part of the brain must be kept with a new structure, therefore there is a soul. What about transference of robotic intelligences? On one hand it could be considered an upgrade or the transference of a file. On the other, there may be a form of rejection. I guess it's just a matter of how they're programmed, and whether their brains evolve physically or "software-ally." Death should be thought of as the extinction of a unique being. Problem with this soul: If a person is frozen when they die, and their original brain cannot be restored (via micromachines or biological machines), but their brain can be cloned to produce a living, perfect, replica. GENETICS In the future DNA criminal analysis may be able to ID a person by his DNA if his parents DNA are on file (if person is unknown). And vice-versa, know DNA of an old crime, might be able to study other's DNA and find descendants DNA, leading to who the original criminal was. The formula was for the first synthetic organic molecule that reproduces itself--a molecule that [may be] a primitive form of life. [The] molecule is made from building blocks different from the amino acids, sugars, and phosphates we're used to. What's more, it reproduces in a chloroform solution, whereas life on Earth evolved in water. As a result researchers are expanding their concept of what raw materials might be needed for an organic primal soup elsewhere in the cosmos. [The] replicator is a two-part, J-shaped molecule dubbed amino adenosine triacid ester, or AATE. The J's long stem is an amine, a compound containing nitrogen. The molecule's shorter tail is an ester, a compound made from an acid and an alcohol. Placed in a solution of like esters and amines, the synthetic molecule's ester will seize a free- floating amine. Meanwhile the molecule's amine will grasp a free ester. The loose ends of the two captured compounds will then fuse, forming a J-shaped copy of the parent molecule that brought them together. Because the copied molecule is held to the original only by hydrogen bonds--the same weak bonds that unite the two long, helical strands of a DNA molecule--the parent and its offspring are easily parted by...normal thermal jostling. The two J's then proceed to make two more; those four make four more; and so on. In a solution with optimum concentrations [the] molecules can copy themselves up to a dizzying million times per second.[104] ...much of your future is already programmed by your genes.[116] [Interview with Francis Crick:] Asked if he thinks humanity should use this [genetic engineering] knowledge to improve its genetic design, he replies, 'You migh almost say it's an obligation.' But first, he adds, people must purge themselves of archaic thinking patterns--especially those related to religion. 'One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false.' he says. 'If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.' Some scientists said the same of Crick in 1981 after the appearance of _Life Itself_, a book on the origin of life that he co-authored with Leslie F. Orgel of the Salk Institute. The book proposed that the seeds of life were sent to the earth in a spaceship launched by beings on another planet. Called directed panspermia, the theory met with derision from other scientists, and Orgel himself described it recently as 'sort of a joke.' But Crick insists that given the weaknesses of all theories of terrestrial genesis, directed panspermia should still be considered 'a serious possibility.' Crick began indulging his long-standing interest in the brain in 1976. Much of his impact has come from his brush- clearing critiques of approaches he feels are misguided. He has warned, for example, of the 'pernicious influence' of the computer as a model for the brain. Computers are designed according to logical and mathematical precepts, he observes, whereas natural selection cobbles organisms together with 'gimmicks and mechanisms,' with whatever works. Crick has also cast a skeptical eye on some aspects of neural networks, computers that process and store information not serially, in one location at a time, but in parallel at many locations, as the brain is thought to do. He has been particularly disparaging about a neural network model of the brain called 'neural Darwinism.' Proposed by the biologist Gerald M. Edelman of the Rockefeller University, it holds that the mind is molded by competition between groups of neurons corresponding to different memories." Yet Crick thinks investigating neural networks can be fruitful. In 1983 he and Graeme Mitchison of Cambridge noted that neural network computer models, when overburdened with data, sometimes cast up 'pseudo-memories' that are actually composities of real ones. The researches suggested that the brain may deliberately employ a similar mechanism during sleep to reduce its memory overload. The result: pseudo-memories called dreams. The bulk of Crick's efforts in neurobiology has been devoted to deconstructing a phenomenon even more ineffable than dreams: consciousness. He decided early on to focus on visual awareness as a stand-in for consciousness, since the literature on vision was abundant and growing fast. But he suggests that all forms of consciousness--whether involving sensory perception, emotion or abstract though- -stem from the same fundamental mechanism, one that combines attention with short-term memory. The phenomenon of attention involves more than the simple processing of information. To demonstrate this point, Crick pulls out a sheet of paper imprinted with a familar black-and-white pattern: it appears as a white vase on a black background one moment and as two face-to-face human profiles the next. Although the visual input to one's brain remains constant, Crick points out, what one perceives--or attends to--keeps changing. What change in the brain corresponds to this change in attention? Even Crick concedes there may be limits to how precisely scientists can know the mind. Just because the brain is a deterministic system, for example, does not mean it will ever be wholly predictable; chaos theory has shown that not to be the case for many complex systems. Consciousness may also turn out to involve processes that, like quantum physics, are paradoxical and extremely difficult to grasp. Then there are 'qualia,' a term used by philosophers to refer to aspects of perception, such as color, that in a certain sense are knowable only subjectively. 'The astonishing hypothesis,' the paragraph beings, 'is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identitiy and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have put it, 'You're nothing but a pack of neurons.''[128] Crick's panspermia was the method used in the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Gene Therapy, is like a blood transfusion--it replaces "defective" genes with "correct" genes. Which means, such things that are caused by gene defects can be easily fixed. Further, this means there is no need for "radical" redesign of the human form. As "better genes" are found, we'll just replace them in us, rather than trying to "create" a better human. 23 I do begin to think that the number of "human habitable" 23 planets may not be that large, so terraforming will one-day 23 be important to adjust those "nearly right" places. 23 Although, on the other hand, genetics and medicine will have 23 fare outpaced it, and possibly it will be more cost effective 23 to do biological alterations to adjust bodies to the planet. 23 Certainly colonists will go with the immediate solution. I 23 speak of costs, sorry, there will be no capitalist system by 23 then. This could explain Star Trek and other science fiction 23 shows: they are not aliens who look like humans (but with 23 some slight changes), but former humans who became colonists 23 and made those biological changes to adjust. HUMAN PHILOSOPHY Division The way the world is going: A small part: high tech, very smart, very powerful The majority: low tech, normal knowledge, numerous but not powerful Who are these groups? Obvious, the high tech is "the west", those within socity who adopt high technology--including most of the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, Korea, and others scattered about. The low tech are China, India, Africa, and the religious world. In some cases it's simply a situtation of not enough to go around (India, China, and Africa). But for the religous countries (Moslum, Islam, etc. worlds) it's a desire to not advance so quickly. In most cases the religions preach about value of spirit rather than value of possesions- -this will drag them down. The lines are pretty much drawn: the US could wipe out China with it's high tech, or China could wipe us out with it's people. But both societies are no longer agressive, so we leave each other alone. This schism will increase. Indeed, if anyone really wanted to force it to be identified geographically, all one would need to do is set up "high tech country" someplace. Someplace where one would go and only see techies. Someplace that produced all the latest tech stuff--but had a no-export policy unless the stuff was over a year old. Us techie's would flock there like droves. But this would only make real what is, perhaps, not so obvious to everyone. That this schism already exists. The computer world, and the networking it allows, is making the smart who can access it smarter, the rest be damned. All that saved productivity the computer offers isn't being done for the vast majority of this planet. Our 2 million shoplifters arrested in the US each year. About 1% criminal of the US population. self _Legacy_ was a very interesting PBS series--I strongly recommend it. At it's end, it's hinting that the west is, or soon will be, undergoing a crisis of "faith"--that is, that it no longer has clarity in its beliefs, goals, morals, etc. And that to continue, the west will need to change, indeed, that the world will need to change, by merging the disparate belief structures around the world. By finding common ground, tolerance, etc. It'll be interesting. With the US essentially broke, chaos will soon be upon us. My own thoughts about the future include such dark things as addicting drugs and addicting cyberspace/virtual reality. We've already undergone many changes: low population growth, reduction of the "traditional" (traditional only to the west, and only over the last few hundred years) family, more isolation from society (eg, we don't know, or care, about our neighbor's). So, changes are already upon us. What we really need: a new understanding about humanity. A new agreement between all citizens to be tolerant of each other's lifestyle--be it criminal or monastic. We need to realize that it's not "wrong" for someone to think, believe, and act out, something for which you don't agree. We can't keep locking people up because we don't understand, aren't willing to understand, or just plain can't communicate. Remember, the US has the greatest number of it's citizens in jails than any other country. We all know how crowded the jails are--so we should get some idea about how many people could be in jail that aren't. And then there's all those that are on parole. We need to realize what a "criminal" is. It is not "criminal" for a person to kill another person. It is "criminal" for a person to kill another person, believing full well that it's something they shouldn't be doing. And this belief must occur at the time--not before or after. If the above sounds crazy, then you're not thinking it through. We're all criminals. At some time we've all done something we've known to be illegal. We've also done something which becames illegal, or became legal. The "law" of any country is just a belief stucture--no different than the "laws" of any religion. We need to realize that laws applied to all will always cause troubles for a few. The reverse isn't true: laws for each person doesn't cause problems for all people. Admit it! We all live by our own rules ("laws" or beliefs). No matter where we are. And we know it! Admit it! At any moment, some law making body could define a law for which you know (and know now) that you will simply ignore--you consider it unreasonable. But you see, that's your beliefs overruling that of the "law makers". Example: speeding. I typically drive 10 miles over the speed limit. It's my risk measurement--I feel that passing 15 "crosses the line" when I both greatly increase my chances of getting arrested, and feel that approaching 20 miles over the speed limit would be appropriate to come after me. I view the speed limit as the "safe speed limit"--in which, "to drive safely, you drive this speed. To drive faster, is to be riskier." I'm 27 now, never got a speeding ticket, and believe I have no problem handling the speeds I choose, and that I should be able to go whatever speed I'm comfortable with. But at the same time, I do believe "safe" limits should be noted--so I can't crash and burn and then claim "I thought 80 mph was safe," when the safe limit was posted at 55. 23 Star Trek's prime directive: to not interfere with a 23 developing culture. So noble. So half-assed. And so 23 imaginary. FACT: not all races will do the above. Conquest 23 and those who wish to help developing races will abound. 23 FACT: sub-groups (such as cults) will make every effort to 23 convert the "primateive heathen" to their religion. Indeed 23 some of the major religions will make major efforts to do so. 23 What this should mean, however, is lots of ruins from 23 empires--increasing the probability of finding them--vs had 23 everyone stuck to their own planet and developed on their 23 own. The downside is a lot less intelligent spieces--since 23 an empire homogenizes them, and when it declines so do they 23 (all at once). And we're talking a million, or whatever, 23 years ago. If an empire existed in this sector, we would 23 have been contacted long ago--possibly even had the planet 23 invaded by colonists. Off course, it could just be that a 23 strict empire government, posts a protective starship here, 23 and waits for us to develop ourselves (just might be "most 23 cost effective"--sort of like self-induced slavery). 27� The real test of an ST-like non-interference is how we react 27� when we scan a planet and find primatives with a clearly 27� advanced and alien building in their midsts. And again when 27� we find another race actually putting such a thing (say to 27� obvserve) onto a primative planet. And again when we see 27� another race actually interfereing with a primative planet 27� (maybe invading). These are the same issues we face today 27� with "should the US be the world's policeman." 27� Having said all this, there is one outstanding argument for 27� interference: that without it, nothing will change. Nature 27� will not change unless it is forced to change because it was 27� interfered with. Example: if the dinosaurs really were wiped 27� out by a meteor. The didn't change for 65 million years. The 27� argument being: things don't change naturally. Species 27� evolve only to fill niches--no niches, no evolution. Only 27� externally forced changes cause niches and allow growth. 27� Probably we'll need some sort of complex "if they are 27� evolving then hands off, if not they it's OK" policy. Beliefs The Dalmer case has left a question. My logic in the matter: 1. it was his own belief structure to kill people. 2. moral/immoral is relative and doesn't matter. 3. good/evel is relative and doesn't matter. 4. right/wrong is based on the law's belief system. 5. the general population each has a belief structure: pro or con and to various extents/degrees either way. Supposedly the law's belief structure is a representative of the population's belief structure (not sure if it's based on the majority or that of a dominant sub-group within the population--such as judges). The law's belief structure has the belief of imprisionment. Since it's the stronger combatant--it has won, and now dalmer cannot exercise his belief in public anymore. The question: how to combat an opposing belief when part of the opposing belief structure is to argue with physical force? PS. if you thought dalmer was wierd--go visit a meat processing plant, one where the animals enter one door alive. From the organized religion's point of view they don't like deviation because it muddles them and could lead to competetion. On the other hand, if you do support a religion, then all the power and organization of it's many members can be used against other religions (so the "little man" always get buried under as the "big guys" fight it out.) Examples include churches, political parties, all the military organizations around the world, etc. In the end, it's still one person vs. another. The Pope, Budda, Stalin, your brother, etc. The organizations provide a big advantage. This can be seen by the way big companies can destroy an individual or his claims by simply making it a long drawn out affair in the courts. I, for instance, have the BBS and JDR-mmyy as a pulpuit. This gives me an advantage over the person standing on the corner preaching--but not over the person in the church down the street. Belief's are a part of people. Attacking beliefs hit them on an emotional level and they tend to strike back with emotion. But cool thinking will always will against an emotional opponent. Organizations provide cool thinking (most are downright insensitive). In some ways my beliefs and many of the religions are compatible--I rule out one God--but I replace him with many "gods" in the form of advanced beings, or even FTL, but don't give them powers that we ourselves as a race may not one day have. Of course, where we really differ is that I preach, "fear death", whereas it seems everyone else is saying "fear not death". Which isn't a logical way to approach an unknown of such ruinous potential. Drugs Much as I hate to admit it, our future will depend on one factor: drugs. We'll either enter a period of dark ages, or a period of enlightenment. Dark ages, if the addictive nature of pleasure drugs rules our world. Enlightenment if the brain-simulus and life-prolonging drugs rules our world. The fact, folks, is the human body takes drugs all the time. Everything we digest or breath is a drug. In the future, we can expect to see a wide variety of drugs-- like evolution, they'll be created to fill every niche. Nowadays, you can find drugs to wake you up, keep you going, get you to go to the bathroom, and put you back to sleep. In the future, we'll be seeing a lot of "anti-" drugs. Drugs to get you off your addictions to other drugs. However, will these be "alternatives" like nicotine--which is an alternative to cigarettes--or actual relief, drugs which flush the desire for nicotine out of your system? It's questions like this that can make it a dark future. How much will the drugs be used for good purposes, and how much for profit or power? A nicotine drug is a for-profit drug. Nowadays, we pop pills. In the future, we'll be using derms. There won't be much difference--both will provide the drug at about the same rate over time. Perhaps derms will deliver the drug more efficiently, or something--don't know what, just know they'll be more popular than pills. Perhaps because they'll all look alike, no embarassment about pills you're taking. Now, some of you may be like me. I abhor drugs that alter the brains structure--that cause me to lose control of myself and my mind. But the future promises brain-enhancing drugs too. Drugs to let you think faster, access long-lost memories, remember better, etc. The brain is, after all, just a drug creation and distribution center. It'll be interesting to see what I do then. "Better living through chemistry" will be the catch-phrase. The question is will this better living cause us to be less concerned about the world around us--do we begin an era of decay. Mind you, the threat and potential will assault from two fronts: drugs and virtual reality. But both are too similar to bother separating. One can use virtual reality (and holograms) to alter the walls around you--but if you use it to hide the walls, then those walls will fall into disrepair without notice. In the next 10 years I fully expect the legalization of all the "street" drugs. This will occur after some drug company invents anti-addiction versions of these drugs or something to de-addict users. These drugs are no different than alcohol or nicotine. The law enforcement savings that will be dangled in front of everyone will be irresisible. The key for you folks in the future: know which drugs are good and which are bad. It's going to be "buyer beware" time again--currently we think anything the FDA approves is good for us. It's like speed limits--we go fast because we think it's safe at that speed, but with no speed limit we'll need to decide for ourselves what is safe and what isn't. 22 Oats have a remarkable power to soothe irritated skin, 22 which is why they have been used for centuries in 22 poultices, masks, and soaps. While the grain should also 22 be a desirable raw material for cosmetic use, 22 difficulties in processing it have limited its potential. 22 No more. Nurture Inc. in Missoula, Mont., is rolling out 22 a family of protein-based biomaterials made from oats. 22 The oat particles can act as natural emulsifiers, bind 22 active ingredients for subsequent controlled release, and 22 sequester unwanted materials from liquids or gases. That 22 makes them suitable for dermatology and cosmic products. 22 As emulsifiers, for instance, when mixed with cosmetic 22 oils such as lanolin, they can produce nongreasy, fast- 22 drying lotions, sunscreens, or insect repellants. Their 22 controlled-release properties also make them valuable for 22 delivering topically applied medicines, such as benzoyl 22 peroxide for treating acne.[144] Education Something I would have liked to see in college, and now in all grading systems: A grade "slush" fund. If a 95/100 is an "A", and you get 99--you would have 4 points in the found. Similary if an 85/100 is a "B" and you got 89. Under the current grading system, these "extra effort points" are simply tossed out. The opposite is currently in use. If 90/100 is a "B" and 80/100 is a "C" and you get an 89--well too bad. Grades are one of the real unfairities in life. They have a nasty tendancy to measure absolutely nothing, and be used for everything. A system of "passed levels" would be much better. In which, twice a year, you are given real-world tests on subjects--to find what level you are at. Then, for the next six months, you take courses (if you want or not is up to you) at that level in that subject. This makes knowledge and learning completely free of the arbitrary grade/level (year in school) system. It is a non-competitive system. It is the cooperative system we use in the real world for continued education in our fields. It is obviously better on all fronts. It even allows for "comparison shopping" of potential employees by knowing their level of knowledge in the many fields and subjects. Similarly, potential employees always know what their strengths and weaknesses are, and which to target for improvement. And if this sounds familar to some of you, then you have played some CRPG games. It is perfect, and should be implemented. Parents teaching at home also use this system. They know the level of knowledge in the various fields the children are at, and can build upon it. Our current system was designed around the "little red schoolhouse" concept, in which each individual school decides what counts as a good grade, etc. The teach-at-home method is similar. While the teach-at-home method does use the level system, its subjectivity makes it as impractical as the current system. There is some of this "level" stuff done in some schools. Usually this involves taking tests to determine which level you should start at--but this is only for those less schooled, if you are really good at something, the current system does not let you build upon that, but rather expects that you should relearn with your peers (this can be most visibly seen when a student moves from a private school to a public school). Simply put, employers have no idea what they are getting if the employee has no experience, merely education. Example in sports: you can get a great athlete only to find he cannot read or write. It is not the least bit funny either, everyone loses out in this system. People always say how quick pre-schoolers are to catch onto new things (such as languages). I would suggest that it is not their age, but the trouble of schools that reduce the learnability of students. Standardized tests is a good start, but some follow though is needed. Certainly these tests should be given each year, not every three or four years. Example, I have never been tested on my writing skills. I have no idea at what level I am. I could be a bad hack or a normal-level writer. Because I do not know, I do not go looking for ways to improve my writing. On the other hand, progamming gives constant feedback about my programming skills--I know all of my strengths and weaknesses when it comes to programming and computer languages. Eliminate grades, adopt a licensing/board review type of process for students. Computer games. Use them. Those that are done properly will have a simulated environment in which you may practice to gain experience and hone your skills. Learning experience and hands-on knowledge that you cannot afford to waste in the real world (both in time and money). Weakness It seems we, as a race, are all too-willing to be, and become, pathetic sniviling beings. Take away a persons livelihood, loves, homes and before you know it, we're begging. It seems something in our soul. Be it the homeless in the US, the starving in africa, or the beaten in Iraq. At a certain point, before becoming sniviling--merely sad, we organize and try to fight--be it war, getting a job, or day- to-day on the streets. When the fight fails--there's nothing left. It's tragic. There are many things we, as a race, need to fix. One of these is self-confidence. We need an existence where anything short of death can't damage our spirit. Perhaps a system NOT based on competition. We're just too damn scared, it's part of our being. One measures the value of a race--not by their best, but by those at their worst. Politics It seems that whenever a political system fails, the nation restricts/censors that method. Germany with the nazi's, now Russia with communism--and of course, dictators and kings throughout history. It's not the system, but the people in the system. Eventually Democracy too will fail. So I propose the following solution: Anarchy. Not the old traditional "do it yourself, and only by yourself" type of anarchy. What I picture is a system, under which EACH INDIVIDUAL could pick and choose from the various laws to follow. So, if you live in Wisconsin, and like Iowa's drunk driving law better, you can proclaim to "be under Iowaian law" for that particular law. And so and so for all the other laws throughout the world. After all, not every country has banned communism, nazism, dictators, or kings. Because they work someplace, not because of the system, but because of the quality of the individuals in those systems. I know, the world isn't "really" as bad as make it out to be- -but it has the potential. Right now, the framework is here for allowing governments and police to do whatever they want. This is america--land where if your house is in the way of a development project, it can be condemded. However, now I'm also starting to understand people. They are the same the world over, have been for thousands of years. I now realize, for instance, that everyone is corruptable. Which is nice, because it fits with the theory that deception was one of the major evolutionary factors for brains. Hardin, as he sat at the foot of the table, speculated idly as to just what it was that made physical scientists such poor administrators. It might be merely that they were too used to inflexible fact and far too unused to pliable people. --ISAAC ASIMOV, Foundation, p 63 27쿌natomy of A movemenut usually doesn't happen spontaneously. Usually 27쿪 movement there are lots of groups individually working towards the 27� same goal, and something happens to unite them. 27� 27� But the downside is that this method works for any movement. 27� And all a movement needs is an ideal. 27� 27� This is particularly true with movements that use belief 27� structures: for example, the white supremists. Individually 27� the groups are diverse with often conflicting views. But 27� they share one generalized belief that "whites are superior 27� to others". The outside world looks in, and says: "all the 27� different groups with wierd beliefs". The members look at 27� each other and say the same thing. But at some point a 27� unifier comes along. And suddenly the members look around 27� and say, "gee we agree on most everything." and they point 27� out that group x believes something, but all the other groups 27� don't so it's just an aberation. We know our groups total 27� beliefs are the true ones, but we'll follow group x because 27� they have the politcal clout and the means. 27� 27� Thus, perhaps without realizing it, they've become a single 27� group. With enough votes to influence elections, and start a 27� movement. 27� 27� For the white suprecists, this happened in November in 27� Germany, when the police tried to crack down. They did 27� sucessufully disroupting a general meeting. But the 27� individual groups had great fun outwitting the cops when they 27� could, and worked with each other to that end. Thus, thru 27� perceived opression of their beliefs, and fun and games, they 27� are congealing into a movement. 27� 27� Thus, the secret final ingredient is a stick that mixes 27� differing group memebers together. The same formula used by 27� people to resolve differences among their beliefs. 27쿟he Law The world is simple: there are your beliefs, and their are 27� the beliefs of other individuals. 27� 27� I believe that we should follow a "respect another's beliefs" 27� policy. 27� 27� However, currently that is not true. We are forced to 27� believe the beliefs of the majority. These come down do us 27� from "The West's" benevolent dictator: The Law. Which 27� requires that all beliefs to those defined be secondary. 27� 27� Most people are lazy. They accept these beliefs, and then 27� extend them by accepting those of some organized religion. 27� 27� My position: that we should eliminate The Law, and all 27� organized religion, and let people maintain their own 27� beliefs. 27� 27� If I'm an alien from the plant XYZ, and I believe its 27� necessary to kill a baby every day, then when I come to visit 27� Earth, I would want the people of Earth to accept my beliefs. 27� 27� With each individual earthing having their own belief--some 27� will accept the alien's beliefs and not try to kill him, 27� others will reject it and try to kill him. That's an 27� individual belief about how you should deal with others' 27� beliefs. 27� 27� But the way it's set up now. We have no choice. Our beliefs 27� are defined by The Law's beliefs, which would kill the alien- 27� -no matter some of our individual beliefs. 27� 27� What gets me is when those institutions we create to protect 27� us adopt this same policy--they aren't people, and therefore 27� have no rights to beliefs. They are merely the tools of the 27� majority to force their beliefs on everyone else. 27� 27� The institutions don't stop you from disagreeing in your 27� beliefs, but they do discourage you through harassment 27� (jailing, murder, etc.). 27� 27� I'm saying it's wrong. That any differences of beliefs 27� should be resolved on an individual basis. That the role of 27� the government Is to mediate disputes, not take sides. For 27� example: maintain a peace keeping force between two 27� beligerents, but not to attack one or the other. Be it 27� messages like this, or between two populous countries, or 27� even two galaxy-spanning empires. It's all the same. 27� 27� Should be simple enough: if both sides don't hold the common 27� belief that they can live together with each other, then they 27� should live separately. Right now, for example: we jail 27� criminals and put them under the power of one belief 27� structure. We should just give them land somewhere and let 27� them run their own society under their own beliefs. 27� 27� Remember: wars, fighting, and competition doesn't resolve 27� beliefs. There is nothing right or wrong about someone's 27� belief. It's only other peoples beliefs that define a belief 27� as right or wrong TO THEM ALONE. As the belief that "my 27� beliefs speak for anothers belief" is logically incorrect, 27� and thus, not a belief. So when we create institutions that 27� "speak for everyone's beliefs" we are (again/still) logically 27� wrong. Only when we deny that another individual does not 27� have beliefs, does the logic work (or when it is known (in 27� the philosphical sense) that anothers beliefs are identical 27� to yours, can you say to speak with their beliefs). 27� 27� I am not saying there is no moral or ethical standard. I'm 27� saying that this standard is defined by each individual 27� according to their beliefs. Society can function by merely 27� having tolerance. 27� 27� I am not defining some imaginary soceity. I am defining us 27� now, as we really are. 27� 27� Let's look at murder. I kill someone, and a group of people 27� kills me in the electric chair. I exercised my belief that 27� killing was OK. They exercised their beliefs that killing 27� was OK. The false thinking is that the two are the same 27� belief: that killing is wrong and the killer should be killed 27� (and we're not even consistent... :->) What did occur: I 27� exercised my belief that I can kill someone. They exercised 27� their belief of retribution/revenge and tit-for-tat and 27� killed me. 27� 27� This does not bring the downfall of society. Because along 27� with my belief that I can kill someone, must also be weighed 27� the belief of how those affected will retaliate. By 27� eliminating Law, we change nothing. The retaliation would 27� merely come from the family/friends/etc. of the victim. But 27� it would be up to the beliefs of those family/friends/etc. to 27� retaliate not The Law. And it would be an individual 27� question of each of those family/friends/etc.--they could do 27� it alone, stop each other, or work as a group towards the 27� goal. 27� 27� In other words, nothing really changes. I'm just bringing 27� more insight into how things really are. And saying that the 27� institutions we create should remain neutral (preferably 27� acting as buffers) rather than picking sides. Because these 27� institutions rely on funding from the whole population, not 27� those believing a specific belief one way or the other. 27� 27� Basically, the situation we have now seems to be that groups 27� of specific beliefs control things. Now, this came about 27� simple because groups of specific believers got together and 27� built whats there. That's no problem: groups of specific 27� believers have been fighting with each other forever. The 27� problem is that the institutions we have now don't admit the 27� fact, and pretend to be for all, forcing non-believers in The 27� Law to obey and follow them. Now, one could argue that 27� because they follow the majority, that this gives them right 27� to rule everyone else--the "sour grapes" theory of rule. But 27� I think it's because the institutions haven't thought about 27� what they are, and are thus falsely guided. Confusing 27� themselves, and the public. By trying to be all things to 27� all people (at least majorities) it inevitably fails at all 27� things. 27� 27� Where it is needed is as a buffer. So that, for example, the 27� farmer that grows wheat and decides to substantially increase 27� prices doesn't get killed immediately by his customers. It 27� would be the governments job to act as a buffer between these 27� two, since killing the farmer eliminates that farmers skill 27� and wheat, which in turn could harm the unthinking customers. 27� The government should give the customers and farmer time to 27� think and resolve their differences in debate. And if they 27� can't, to just let them each exercise their beliefs. 27� 27� Well, of course all individuals hold differing opionions. 27� Yes, groups may form consensus on SOME of those opinions. 27� But that still doesn't make them good/bad/right/wrong. 27� 27� Who says the Nazi's were wrong? Most likely people who have 27� their own ideas about how to "properly" murder people. 27� Remember the burning of witches? How about the Christian 27� church's own dungeons? Or Iran's terrorism? Mao Tse Tung's 27� famine in China? 27� 27� As for science fiction, I will continue to make analogies. 27� It is false not to. For example, those that believe in gods, 27� fail to accept the fact that those gods are Aliens, and thus 27� desire subjegation under alien rule. (Hmm, The Law is a non- 27� human as well.) 27� 27� Just a quick point: beliefs are not yes/no things. "Do you 27� believe in ghosts [y/n]?" is not the real world. There is 27� an infinite number of possible orientations on any single 27� belief. Just a matter of how deep you want to go into the 27� description before your belief becomes unique. For example: 27� "I believe there is a god, who rules over the earth, who 27� created the universe, and who lives in Sector 1000x 1500y 27� 3000z from galactic center." Sure, a little off, but its no 27� different then arguing his sex type. 27� 27� Also remember that much of what you think is also your 27� beliefs. "I think I'll go to the store later." is actually 27� "I believe that later I'll be going to the store." "My 27� favorite color is red." is actually "I believe my favorite 27� color is red." The reason why much of what we think is just 27� beliefs is because our brain offers no proof or feedback 27� method to confirm our actual orientation on anything. 27� Similarly, because we spend most of our time planning to do 27� stuff, anything concerning the future is just speculation and 27� just a belief. 27� 27� Here's another way to view "accepting everyone's beliefs": 27� 27� To be Politically Correct. 27� 27� The only problem: as defined Politically Correct is to not 27� offend anyone. Which is logically impossible, because there 27� is someone who will be offended by having to be inoffensive. 27� So this part of PC is illogic and must be thrown out. 27� 27� Leaving the more liberal: "tolerating everyone's beliefs". 27� 27� There are three tools in the battle of beliefs that produce 27� change in anothers belief: logic, fact, and reason. But even 27� if you have all the answers, you still have to combat their 27� emotion. 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�