Dwellers of the Cave?

The great philosopher, Plato, once wrote an essay entitled The Allegory of The Cave. In this essay, Plato tells the story of a number of individuals, whom happened to be the inhabitants of a cave. The cave, and the darkness therein, is symbolic of a number of things. However, the two most pronounced and understood symbols are the representations of underexposure and ignorance. As it stands, these persons have lived out their entire lives in this cave, and have never known or been exposed to anything else. On the other hand, there is one who seems to mistakenly stumble outside the cave and into the daylight. The daylight could mean a number of things, as I am sure that it does to each reader. Consequently, the light juxtaposes the darkness, and can be seen an knowledge and exposure.

Now, as any decent person would do, this enlightened man tries to return to his fellow bretheren and explain to them what he has just witnessed. His ultimate goal is to get others to v enture outside of their present darkness. However, he gets quite the unwarranted response. More of his peers than not are greatly angered at him, either because they are in disbelief or because they are fearful and resent the fact that they have wasted so much time in darkness. Only a few believe. Yet, it could be that most believed him, but they were extremely afraid. Assumably, the darkness that they knew was better than that which they didnt know. Or, it could have been that because they could not fathom that there was any other existence beside the one that they and always known, no matter how horrible it maybe.

Ive contemplated this tale time and time again, and can not help but notice the dualities between the cave dwellers and my people (i.e.Black folk). For centuries, in this country, African-Americans, and other diasporic Africans were kept in darkness when it came to education and their history. This darkness haunted our ancestors in their strivings to gain education and to know themselves; In many cases, it cost them their lives. However, their were a lucky few who were able to overcome the pervasive darkness of discrimination and racism and achieve their dreams. Yet, this was not true of the masses. What is even more problematic is how pervasive this darkness continues to be when it comes to Black history, which is subsequently world history. There are no longer the same visible monsters that try to beat us off our path. Yet there are those mental demons, which tell us that to love self and try and learn about self is being racist. There are also those demons that tell us that it is unnecessary because we now live in a multicultural society, where racism no longer exist, thus making it unnecessary to take the issue of cultural history seriously. And, last but least, there are those demons that tell us that those annals of Black history are not true, because Black folk could not possibly have done such things. Out of all the se demons, I do not presume to know which is worse. But, i will say that I believe the latter demon shows more power, because it is he who causes many of us to suffer from inferiority complexes that prevent us from reliving the greatness that we once knew.

On the other hand, there are now many of us who have been lucky enough to encounter the light in its many forms, be it formal education or self taught knowledge. However, what seems to be most problematic here is the various interpretations of the light that we seem to want to take back to our bretheren. Many of us either want to force feed people or tell them nothing at all, and take the attitude that I did it myself, why cant they? There are also some of us who have taken the attitude that our exposure to the light has in some way made us better the masses who remain in darkness. Consequently, we never seem to realize that in many ways than not we are very similar to the initial cave dweller that stumbled into the light. Negating the fact that our exposure to the light brought with it a duality of things- an opportunity and a responsibility. The opportunity is whatever you make of it-that is the individual part. The responsibility is to take the light/knowledge back to our community-to whom much is given, much is required. The enlightened can not afford to let the darkness continue to overpower our people. What does all this mean? This means that the enlightened must teach them, tell them, embrace them, love them into the light.

Carolyn Hall is a doctoral candidate at Clark Atlanta University. She recieved her BA and MA in English from Tennessee State University. She is a native of Memphis, Tn and currently resides in Atlanta, GA, where she teaches at Clark Atlanta University

Author:: Carolyn Hall
Keywords:: article submission, Articles, Writers, Writing, Publishing, Ezine, Email marketing, Email newsletter, Email
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Another Reason to Dump All World Religions in the Present Period

We see in the world culture clashes and even wars fought over religions and religious literature with vengeance. But why? If all these religions are so old and we humans knew so little back then, wouldn't ya say it is time to upgrade the human species a tad and well ditch all religion in the present period so we can maintain a steady clip of forward progression in the human race into the next period. I am serious.

Why not just get rid of all of it. Silly humans wake up, you are killing each other over some old wives tales and folklore which they made up to control your ancestors. Those people who made it all up are all dead now, you don't have to follow all that piddly dribble any longer? Wake up and take a gander outside the cave. It is way to stuff in there with all the flickering lights, fog and smoke.

As we watch the massive slaughter of entire third world countries over a belief in a good, witch doctor, voodoo doll or even various factions of Islam itself, doesnt it seem rather odd, that so many religions have been the previous fiber holding people together? Why are we even allowing such disruptive thought in the world? Why do we allow people to kill their neighbors over something that was written by men to control other men 3000 years ago? Consider this in 2006.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: Another Reason, Dump All World Religions, Present Period
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

The Superultramodern Doubt

The Superultramodern Doubt is the first and the most basic principle of my 'Superultramodern Science / Philosophy'.

Theorem: Anything may be possible.

1. That which could otherwise be believed to be absolutely (or 100%) certainly impossible at present could be possible as the intellectual capacities of the believer may be limited. That is, the proposition/s, for example, that are otherwise thought to be absolutely certainly true could be false.

Controversy:

1. Cartesian Doubt vs. Superultramodern Doubt

The Cartesian Doubt is the Doubt raised by Rene Descartes on everything except his own existence as he is a thinking, specifically Doubting, substance. Thus, the Cartesian Doubt is the principle that anything may be possible, except the impossibility of ones own existence as one is a thinking, specifically Doubting, substance. The Cartesian Doubt thus contradicts the Superultramodern Doubt.

Lets for a moment agree with the Cartesian infer ence that I think (specifically Doubt) therefore I am. But still it could be that it is a wrong way of thinking. I naturally think that as there is a Doubt there has to be someone who Doubts. But it could be a wrong inference. My language, for example, always refers to I because I cannot think otherwise. But I can very well think that I could be wrong. The basic thought involved in the justification of the theorem of the Superultramodern Doubt appears to be more fundamental than the thought mainly involved in the Cartesian Doubt.

The Cartesian Doubt is also referred to as Universal Doubt. However, Cartesian Doubt is not really universal as it is not applicable to itself or ones own existence. The Superultramodern Doubt is universal as it is even applicable to itself or ones own existence.

2. Certain universal Doubt vs. Uncertain universal Doubt

Certain universal Doubt would be the principle that anything is possible. In contrast to it, the principle of Supe rultramodern Doubt that anything may be possible would be uncertain universal Doubt. Now, quite apparently, as a universal Doubt is all-inclusive, it applies to itself (or is self-referential), and thus should be uncertain.

Philosophical Implications of the Superultramodern Doubt:

1. All axioms as 99.99% certainly true

All of the propositions which otherwise appear to be 100% (or absolutely) certainly true should now be supposed to be 99.99% certainly true. In other words, it should be believed that it is 0.001% likely that those axiomatic propositions are false. An example of such propositions would be if p implies q, and q implies r, then p implies r. This 0.001% slightest margin in the belief system should be reserved/retained for the sake of the Superultramodern Doubt.

2. No belief in a proof

Implication 1 implies that there should be no belief in a (mathematical) proof. Something may actually have been proved, but it would be irrational fo r one to believe that it has been proved. (Here the term proof means definite, absolute, or certain resolution of a problem.)

3. All Mathematics as Philosophy

Implication 2 implies that all Mathematics is hypothetical and thus philosophical.

Author:: Kedar Joshi
Keywords:: Superultramodern, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy, Descartes, Meditations, Doubt, Epistemology
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

World Religions and the Culture Clash

Will the World ever get along with all these different viewpoints and all this animosity? Or is it simply no use and the world of Western and Middle Eastern can never be one. Constantly caught in a Culture Clash with a them VS us mentality and the killing never stops? Which is why in hindsight the Rand Corporation out your way was not so far off in their solution and although a horrific and frightening suggestion this problem indeed would never have existed. Pretend I did not say that. Next thought;

Remember the Christian Convert from Islam who went to his beheading court trial? Why was he converting to Christianity? Were there missionaries over there attempting to convert; if so why? It is really not the time or place for that now. Religious freedom is cool; no religion might be better. But this issue is not going to end.

Religious freedom is loved by Muslims in the US and other places, but unfortunately it is not reciprocated. Maybe we should bring in big car go ships to all the Indonesian islands and work our way into their hearts by giving them more free stuff? Pretend I did not say that either.

Does it really matter which invisible friend you choose? I mean Santa Clause, Easter bunny, Mohammed, Jesus, The Voodoo witchdoctor from above; to me any of it is problematic and religion is preventing the human race from pressing on and achieving forward progression. Maybe we need to rethink human religions all together? Consider this in 2006.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: World Religions, Culture Clash
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

The Mystery Of Chicken Soup And Other Things That Are

Do you remember the thrill of the first snowflake that you caught on your tongue as a child? Do you remember the way cold air rushed into your mouth, the way you over strained your tongue to make sure you caught it and the way it tingled on your tongue once it landed? It was spectacular! Like so many joys of childhood and life, really, it is a very simple thing. Or, is it?

It is always snowing somewhere in the world and as a result, we take snow for granted. If we consider what it actually takes for snow to form at a molecular level, its not so simple. In fact, like many of the things we often consider simple, they are actually somewhat miraculous. The fact that we understand the nature or mechanics of a miracle does not make it less miraculous.

It is the inquisitive part of our nature that drives us to understand the miracles in our lives. Understanding the miracle gives us a sense of control over our environment. We like that. We like it so much tha t we often rush to understanding. The rush to understanding is where we get into trouble.

Often, after we can reproduce the results that we are interested in, we move on to decipher the next miracle. Nature does so many things well and there is always someone ready trade on its name. What manufacturer hasnt raced onto radio and television and told us about the benefits of a miracle botanical they use in their new and improved product? If we assume that the claim regarding the botanical is true, what we must ask as thoughtful consumers is whether or not the botanical in question is really in the product?

We know what chemical components make up many plants. With all the research and with all that we know, we still cant originate life. It is only the fact that we cannot produce the result that limits our hubris in this area. Does that seem like a harsh statement? I refer you to the genetically engineered crops that are growing on so many corporate farms ac ross the United States. We believe that we understand the component elements of crops so well that we can change them genetically to suit our needs. And, we can. What we dont spend a lot of time on is what else happens as a result of the genetic modifications. You may remember the sudden wave of allergies to bread that popped up about the same time genetically modified wheat made its way into the mainstream grocery store.

Its a personal fascination of mine; things that work and we dont know why. The efficacy of chicken soup has been my favorite mystery. The fact that we dont know exactly why something works doesnt stop us from tinkering with it and then extrapolating that we will command the same results as the original compound. We do this even when we know we dont know what role the other compounds that we consider to be inactive play. We assume they are just therelike a placeholder like an appendix. What do you think the chances are that our appendix has ab solutely no function whatsoever? Thats our hubris again.

We dont know what it is for, therefore, it doesnt do anything note worthy and we dont really need it.

Consider all of the extra stuff that is left out of botanical derivatives in their various incarnations like Hydrosols. The truth is we know that Hydrosols have virtually nothing effective in them. Still, Hydrosols are a favorite of manufacturers because they are inexpensive. They a re ridiculously cheap and that is why they are a manufacturers favorite. These same manufacturers have no hesitation in charging premium prices, trading upon the name of efficacy without providing, well, efficacy.

In short, (I know its a little late for that) as consumers we must be vigilante that we receive the ingredients and their commensurate benefits that we expect and pay for.

Dawn Worthy, owner of Fresh From the Farm, offers a complete line of biodegradable, vegan friendly, organic botanical soap. What is in the soap is good. What isn't in the soap is better. There are no artificial ingredients. There are no manufacturing, coloring or fragrance additives. It's simple, Aunt Ann's Garden Soap is naturally good. We invite you to see for yourself at http://www.FreshFromtheFarm.Us

Author:: Dawn Worthy
Keywords:: Botanicals, Hydrosols, botanical labeling, cosmetic ingredients,
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Joseph Brant and The Hegelian Dialectic

I admit I am only able to provide guesses as to the nature of how the elites might convene or make known to each other the nature of shared interests at different times. I have traveled in some circles where some of these people are present and I may have overheard a few things from others who work for them but it is pure guesswork in the final analysis. The Jacobin Scottish era shows us that Hume, Carlyle and Gibbon where checking with each other and following a plan to minimize the lesser nobles or keep them in the dark. Who did these people report to in the Stuart Royal camp? Bonnie Prince Charlie was opposed by his own general when the French did not send troops as promised so we can wonder if the people like William of Hesse and the De Medicis who appear together shortly after this were involved. Clearly Robespierre fomented a Revolution they needed in order to cleanse over-indulgences of the Royals in France. I am pretty sure that the Hegelian Dialectic borne of the top-down Platonic ideology was a factor. They were playing many sides and some very high personages were left out of the loop.

The Royal Society included a shadow government and Francis Bacon may have been the actual offspring of Queen Elizabeth. At that time we saw a concentration of the best minds under the auspices of the Stuarts. The Stuarts are the Milesian BEES and so are the Benjaminites like the Rothschilds who got the De Medicis monopoly and spy network. If you put it together it is worth speculating that a few people like Lord Mountbatten and Pierre Dupont de Nemours are in a position to make or influence decisions. To what degree they get manipulated by their own paladins and how far the conflicts in their own midst go is the big question mark.

The head people of the Priory of Sion were often from the alchemists in the Royal Society so we can speculate that an inner group of people there were of great importance. When Dan Brown (Author of The Da Vinci Code) had the tie in to Roslyn and the Sinclair Stewarts there he was making a similar guess to what I am saying.

The use of myths like the Grail legend or other religious denominations they have allowed the Masons to start (Mormons, Scientology, Billy Graham and fundamentalism, Calvin, Luther and all the rest) are mirrored in the Hindu Tradition. They were always in touch with that part of the world and China. The Tarim Basin was once a central area that their top people resided. The Basilidae of Hecateus family and the Basilians who derive therefrom as well as the Nestorians are evidence of this in the Greco-Roman to recent era. In America they had the Toltecs and Mediwiwin who were not always willing to toe the line just as the Ptolemies like Juba had been unwilling to go along with the major power grabs and Brutus was doing to Caesar. These things require a lot of reading and researching and I have done the bulk of the work to make these things into a continuous an d reasonable guess at true history.

Thus it often crosses my mind and I have to tell people who are into some of the Conspiracy Theories such as Jesuits, Rothschilds and the rest; that it has always been the case for the last 5,000 years James Joyce dubbed a nightmare. It is not one group all on their own, and it is not new. They have tried to let people take part in their own education and government but often this back-fired. I can defend many of the things they have done. The time for true change is upon us however.

Could the 'hide the ball' campaign or technique that keeps our attention away from the real problem and lack of freedom, such as the 'Red Scare' (Palmer Raids) or spread of communism be taken over by anti-smoking and ecology? I'm sure the people in the trenches of these battles are good people who have no ulterior motive. But my question is worth thinking about on the road to establishing priorities, I hope. The highest level of engineering where t he greatest evolution has occurred might be in the field of 'social engineering' and polite political intrigue. This is one area of human development that I see no ancient gift and intent to develop into greater adeptness, until the myth-making of the Mediterranean patriarchs or what Jung calls the 'Ur-stories'. From that point forward things have taken a far more Synarchistic tyrannical turn. The relationship of Onassis and Winston Churchill is one that I find most intriguing but no greater than the Iroquois roots of the Randolphs or Churchills. The Indian name of Joseph Brant tells us his father understood what position his son would have to take.

In the tradition of the Mediwiwin Society of pre-Columbian Masons in America and the genetically proven Sioux to Iroquois Haplogroup X trackers showing they are white, we have Joseph Brant who is a proud Mason. Churchill is related to him; and because Churchill was also a Druid and Mason among other things including the Rho des outgrowth of Illuminism, it gets interesting to see this. Of course, one must remember that Thomas Paine said Masonry is based on the 'sun son worship of Druidry and that the Adams Dragons are in this too. This is taken from the respected official Masonic site of British Columbia and the Yukon.

1742 - November 2, 1807

The Mohawk Thayendanegea, also known as Joseph Brant, served as Principle Chief of the Six Nations Indians, a Christian missionary of the Anglican church, and a British military officer during the U.S. War of Independence.

Brant was born in 1742 near what is now Akron, Ohio and given the Mohawk name of Thayendanegea, meaning he places two bets. N.B. He inherited the status of Mohawk Chief from his father.

A student of Latin and Greek, he helped translate Mark's Gospel into Mohawk. With the help of the Iroquois, he fought for the British against the American colonists. After the war he led his people to what is now Ontario, Canada. Jo seph Brant died in Burlington, Upper Canada on November 2, 1807.

The story of his rescuing a Continental soldier may be apocryphal. (6)

Apocryphal perhaps but it is also evidence of his connection with a media spin which makes his people accepted on both sides.

Author of Diverse Druids Columnist for The ES Press Magazine Guest 'expert' at World-Mysteries.com

Author:: Robert Baird
Keywords:: Mediwiwin Society, Joseph Brant, The Hegelian Dialectic
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Scientology Church Vs the Scientology Philosophy

Many people lump together the Scientology church, and the Scientology Philosophy Hubbard created. Then bag the church for it and its adherents strange behaviour. But isnt that like throwing out the baby with the bath water?

The Scientology church and some of its high profile adherents, Tom Cruise springs into mind here, seem at odds with the stated aims and purposes which the founder, now deceased, set out.

The tenets of the church proclaim, quite rightly, freedom of speech and freedom of expression as regards religion. This can be seen by anyone who reads the Creed of the Church which can be found at creed of the church of Scientology.

However continued attacks on the Scientology Freezone, that area of Scientology where people practice the Scientology religion outside of the official church, demonstrate a lip service given to the creed rather than firm belief. In addition subsequent changes in the basic texts of the Philosophy have alienated the true aficionado of the original working Philosophy.

This basic Philosophy is found in the many books he wrote and the many thousands of lectures he gave which are available on audio tapes and CDs

The application of the technology includes Auditors (practitioners) a pplying certain auditing techniques and procedures (exercises) with PreClears (Clients) to produce an exactly defined benefit for that client.

It includes the understanding of life, it's composition and potentialities. The application part of the Philosophy includes activities which one can embark upon to improve one's life both in the spiritual sense as well as the physical.

Such benefits can include:
An increased spiritual awareness
An improvement in lifestyle
An acquired or improved ability of a clearly defined nature

In fact, the Philosophy and working technology which Hubbard researched an d developed is well known by many thousands of people who have found it to be beneficial for them in their lives and has assisted them to become more aware and capable.

This is distinctly different to the practices of the church, much more in the public eye, and which is much more perceived by the media and critics. Which leads one to wonder what is it that is actually being criticized here?

Perhaps it is not the religion after all but the current management of the church, once held in high regard but now perceived somewhat less favourably.

Further information on the actual differences is available on the link below.

Permission to use this article is granted provided this link to http://Scientologistsfreezoe.com is included.

Sebastian Tombs

Author:: Sebastian Tombs
Keywords:: Scientology,church of Scientology, tom cruise,Freezone,Scientologist,Scientologists,Philosophy
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Self Peace for World Peace

Self Peace

The first thing required For World Peace, is Self Peace. Self Peace is the calmness of the inside mind. Meaning, the Peace residing in your mind, body and subconscious mind. With such a Peace, you are emotionally rested, and strong to face the World and its realities. Only by facing reality, will there be understanding, and by understanding, Peace.

Take an example. A smile by a small kid, or a short laugh at a joke will give your mind a soothing feeling. A feeling of goodwill. A feeling which incites you to do something. But above all, a feeling which gives your mind Peace, as the mind understands that you are cared For.

Thus, emotional, mind Peace is obtained. But remember, as the Oracle told Neo in The Matrix, know thySelf. With Self understanding, comes Self confidence. Speak to yourSelf often. Evaluate your good and bad. And boost your morale yourSelf. It's a technique I often use on the eve of an exam!

Another method is Yoga, and med itation. Or indulge yourSelf in some activity that you find to your liking. Forget about the rest of the World. Bring in att-i-tude. And let your mind soar (dont Forget to come back to the ground).

With all these virtues, Self Peace comes automatically. And once you have obtained Self Peace, go For World Peace, and help this cause! Yeeeehaaaa!

I'm Mohan K. the webmaster of http://www.BlogForPeace.org I'm interested in World Peace, and I intend to bring about my interest in a grand sort of way. I hope that each of you will help me in my initiative...

Author:: Mohan K
Keywords:: Self, Peace, World, Peace, Blog, For, Peace, How, to Attain, Attain, Uses
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Minds of the Masses Turned over to the Massive Media Monster

Have you lost your mind? If so I bet I can help you find it, you see you have turned it off and lost it in your TV. You can get it back for free, the remote is in front of you can you still see? It appears to me that the Minds of the Masses have in fact turned them over to the Massive Media Monster or M3. May I ask why you have done this? What you plan on doing about it and when you are going to start to solve this problem of yours?

You see I want to turn people like you back on. I want to get you and them to use their Minds again. How can we do this? Well we need each and everyone of us to start Thinking again, but first we need to start by making sure that people believe in self, have confidence in their own abilities and are willing to Think for themselves. By doing this we can break through the confines of Religion, prejudice, economic enslavement, war, education, physical limitations, and Government bureaucracy.

The forward progression of humankind must press on and go beyond the barriers that are slowing us down; it is time now to move forward, are you coming with us? The Reason I ask is we havent seen you lately. Your topics of conversations have dwindled to that which you see on TV. Your Voting habits have also changed and you are accepting all this electronic background noise as your own, rather than exercising your right to chose through your own observations, knowledge and Reasoning. Think on this.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: Minds, Masses, Turned over, Tv, Massive Media Monster, Think, Reason, Voting, Religion, Government
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Choice and Social Acceptance in Human Organizations

Lets discuss choice and social acceptance. I had the most interesting conversation the other day with a friend at a coffee shop. I was working on a quote and read it out loud and then we discussed it for hours. First here is the quote:

It is interesting how many groups, religions, teams, military organizations, etc. offer: Social Acceptance all in trade for you giving up your ideals, thoughts, personal observations and dreams.

This of course later after the conversation had two qualifiers.

First; You actually have to have formed ideals, thoughts, personal observations and dreams (Many perceive they have formed such, but in reality are brainwashed like the masses through media bombardment and the nurturing within the false land of political correctness. These poor souls have merely convinced themselves that they believe rhetoric which has been purported as fact throughout the history of mankind).

Second; The person must be somewhat similar to the oth ers already in the group in various attributes. (for instance a black person cannot join the KKK, even if he were to agree with there premise and a Jewish person cannot join a NEO-Nazi group. A skinny person cannot join an organization of Line Backers and a Chinese person cannot join the Mayflower Society). This is because mankind in order to form social groups usually picks enemies that in turn bond the group together in a common cause. Such enemies are predetermined by the group and continually change through a gang mentality, which mankind is all to good at promoting when it serves a group they wish to control.

Now then when discussing these observations we had some other thoughts.

With such a set of choices for an enlightened individual, why bother joining any group at all? Why would you join any group that would have you as a member? Which indeed is an excellent question. If you are willing to give up your values, views and observations in trade for joining simply to be socially accepted then perhaps you are unworthy as an individual to give much to the group except numbers which increase the power of the leaders. If most groups amongst the human species are set up in such a fashion it would appear that belonging to no groups is could in fact be a greater noble calling. So then the character of the followers of the most benevolent of organizations may not be noble at all. Giving up ones self seems to be a waste of a very large cranial cavity and potential brain capacity which mankind has available for cognitive reasoning. This is why we say it is very interesting how many of these clubs, religions, groups require blind following and even more interesting how many people are willing to deny their own observations, beliefs and dreams to satisfy the innate characteristic need of belonging, social acceptance and respect from their fellow man.

Obviously mankind is a social animal, which means we naturally form groups and work with each other for the benefit of the group. Maslow in his comments would agree that such a need of man is so great that they would follow into a death march, just to belong. Muslim suicide bombers comes to mind. Life itself and the essence of all we are while we are here is in jeopardy is all but wasted when we fail to question authority and blindly follow those who use our human needs against us. We also took into consideration Gangs in inner cities, kids doing drugs from peer pressure, accountants cheating to belong to a company, etc. In about an hour we came up with about 40 examples, which seemed to correspond to most of societies major current issues and problems. In the franchising industry, we believe one should keep the local community atmosphere and local feel, without having to give up their values, dreams, ambitions, self or observations.

It would behoove people to join groups to solve the needs of the human spirit that do not require one to give up their value system, dreams, aspirations, principles, personal belief system based on real observations. Any group of the sort does not serve humankind or its participants and certainly not those who become enemies of the group or are used as something to be against. We as a species ought to get along and understand that the problem is in the way we form social groups. The problem is not the fact that humans do form groups, that is clearly innate and possibly the reason that our branch of upright walking homo sapiens was the one which got this far in the first place. There appears to be some needs out there for us to continue in this tradition so we must think about what we are doing, who we are doing it with, what we have to give up to belong before we give away the greatest gift in trade. Choose both. Choose a group, which fulfills your needs as a human being and a groups or groups, which do not require your giving up your individuality or mind. After all this is a free country, soon to be a free world and we are granted freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of thought and it is worth all we have sacrificed to date. Something to think about. That is all for Coffee Shop Philosophy today. Any ideas along this theme, please post them below.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: Social Acceptance, Human Organizations, Philosophy
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Straight Angular Lines are So Powerful in Art!

Ultimately, we want our designs to contain beauty and meaning. This is not easily done. Since *Lines* is one of the elements of design, we never want to overlook how Lines can enhance or detract from our work. Lines should be used in such a way that they improve the tone and quality of designs. In the way Lines are used, they add a unique signature to artistic expressions. To illustrate, everyone forms the Lines in their handwriting and signature according to their own biological thumbprint. This same principle holds true for artists.

In nature and in most designs, there are a large variety of Lines that range from short to long, thick to thin, smooth to jagged, and curved to straight. Straight, angular Lines bring structure, strength, and stability to designs; while curved, s mooth Lines generate movement and grace.

As we continue to raise our awareness for the creative arts, we need to remember the importance of Lines and be mindful of how Lines are used in nature. For instance, some varieties of palm trees have leaves with straight folds in them, yet the shapes of the leaves are circular. And as for man made designs, notice the body styles of today's motor vehicles. If Lines on motor vehicles are too straight instead of those nice curves, cars would not be as visually pleasing to us. Even landscapes have more appeal when curves are incorporated.

Straight and squared off Lines are predominantly used for books, magazines, business cards, brochures, and paper in general. Straight, angular Lines look great on architecture with complementary curved Lines< /b> to set it off. The form of kitchen tiles are straight and grid-like and contain the illusion of texture (or patterns) and have become the standard protocol (or upgrades) for kitchens and bathrooms throughout America.

Lines are part of every design, and it is up to us to know how to use them. When straight, angular Lines are combined with curvy Lines, designs have a broader appeal. Unless you are designing a flag as an emblem, make sure to complement straight Lines with curvy ones. (Revised 2/17/2006)

Debbie Jensen, Graphic Designer and Photographer http://www.debjensendesigns.com

Author:: Debbie Jensen
Keywords:: Lines, design principles, watch your Lines, observe nature, notice Lines in art, art education,
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Emerson and Plato

You might be surprised by the breadth and reach of the influence of Plato. Even Ralph Waldo Emerson is one of his progeny. Emerson also had a lot of Swedenborgian Rosicrucian leanings and was heavily influenced by Thomas Carlyle whose biographers have still not figured out what his secret was that made him tell them they would never get him or his life right. That secret ties Carlyle and Goethe to Swift and other literary and scientific members of the Hibernians who oversee the Priory of Sion and Royal Society. Here is what Columbia Encyclopedia on the web has to offer.

We must not forget that a large part of the effort to inte grate philosophy and spirituality has been done, and sometimes people called Nazis (Carlyle) had a lot to do with fostering the humanitarian movement and what is called transcendentalism. Emerson is one of the greats along with Thoreau and Whitman - at least in their influence on my life as I grew up.

The writer's father, William Emerson, a descendant of New England clergymen, was minister of the First Unitarian Church in Boston. Emerson's early years were filled with books and a daily routine of studious and frugal homelife. After his father's death in 1811, his eccentric but brilliant aunt, Mary Moody Emerson, became his confidante and stimulated his independent thinking. At Harvard (1817-21) he began recording his thoughts in the famous Journal. Poor health hindered his studies at the Harvard div inity school in 1825, and in 1826, after being licensed to preach, he was forced to go south because of incipient tuberculosis. In 1829 he became pastor of the Old North Church in Boston (Second Unitarian). In the same year he married Ellen Tucker, whose death from tuberculosis in 1831 caused him great sorrow.

Emerson's personal religious scruples and, in particular, his conviction that the Lord's Supper was not intended by Christ to be a permanent sacrament led him into conflict with his congregation. In 1832 he retired from his only pastorate. On a trip to Europe at this time he met Carlyle (who became a close friend), Coleridge, and Wordsworth. Through these notable English writers, Emerson's interest in transcendental thought began to blossom. Other strong influences on his philosophy, besides h is own Unitarian background, were Plato and the Neoplatonists, the sacred books of the East, the mystical writings of Swedenborg, and the philosophy of Kant. He returned home in 1834, settled in Concord, Mass. and married (1835) his second wife, Lydia Jackson.

I feel it is imperative to place some real history in this book. There are so many people who know something is wrong with our history and they believe in fictions like Atlantis which was based on Plato in large part. I feel quite passionate about these matters as you will see. This excerpt is taken from my book The Rising Roman Empire.

BERBERS ARE BEES TOO?

I must admit I was both pleased and surprised to read various Stuart historians during my research, saying that the Berbers are part of the Stuart lineage. Niven Sinclair and William Hamilton Stewart may not be the best sources but they give the more unvarnished picture of the situation even if it does appear a bit racist. After all is said and do ne my Hamilton/Lynn/Burke (mother) and Baird/King/Keough (father) genetic background have a lot of elitist people who gave up trying to make the world a better place for everyone.

I cannot say exactly when the pendulum turned fully towards the present malaise and I cannot be sure when it was that they became free and safe through the use of their advanced technology and use of islands as defendable homelands. The defendable mountains and islands seem to have been sought out rather soon after the Caucasians became more than just a curiosity. One of the key places of development is in the Tarim Basin surrounded by mountains and a desert. It may even have been the original Mediterranean (between two mountain ranges).

My guess is the elitist campaign happened around the time Sinclair says he can trace his family to the Berbers about 20,000 years ago. I think they made a deal with an Asian group at that juncture. The legends of MU and Atlantis take a lot of interpret ing and analysis in comparison with the known artifacts. The Royal Bloodlines are just as complex and important to examine. You will not find it in Cahills book on the Jews. (1)

As I often say Plato was a front man who made the story of Atlantis to suit his elite family and the needs of the ruling classes who were Hellenizing all knowledge. Now, you can see I dont believe in aliens as our forbears, or Atlantis. But you might be surprised how many times people tell me that is what my history sounds like. Funny thing that is what their history is founded upon. That, and a growing hierarchy that put some men above others and all men over women in their class. It is not a his-story I enjoy or promote the continuance of, but I do have to face the facts that it is what most people believe.

Plato was the descendant of the wise Solon and I suspect his Danaus forbears are related to the Semitic Sargon the Great. In his era Ptolemy certainly drew his family tree back to the Danaus or Danaan great by the name of Herakles or Hercules. We will see that the Antonine Roman Emperors are of this same lineage. In the case of Ptolemy, who was put in charge of Egypt by the Kelt/Thracian/Macedonian hermeticist Alexander, he encouraged Manetho to write a Kings List which drew his lineage to Hercules. This is evidence of the founders of Egypt being Danaan or de Danaan in the line of Isis and Osiris. That Kings List forms the basis of the Bible Narrative and Egyptology today. It has some errors to say the least.

However, it is of interest to note that Manetho has Isis coming to found Egypt around the time that we see the genetics shows the white man came to exist. Also we have recent archaeological proof of deep mining engineering here at that time. Isis Pelasgi is one of the continuing titles of the Ptolemaic lineage including Cleopatra. And we saw the Pelasgi in the quote from ESOP earlier. The Berber sea people or pirates include those people who lived in Genoa around 2000 BC. The Cisalpine Gauls including the great historian Livy and his family will play a major role along with their Veneti brothers of Brittany as our history continues. For now it is important to say that the name of Brittany and Britain come from one of these Keltic families named Bruttii or Brutus who are Sons of Aeneas and Trojan War heroes; just like the family of Julius Caesar who they later assassinated. These extended families kept a verbal (sometimes written) history that forms the basis of the kind of things that Royals and Knights Malta still place great value upon. Here is a response to a person (Essene Templar that he is) which I made in a Grail project I am involved in researching.

When I use the term extended family I am hearkening back to a time and place such as you suggested had little or no real ecclesiastical structure. Elder Council ran places that never really wanted any of the genocide practiced upon them by those try ing to help them PROGRESS by nice sounding phrases like Manifest Destiny.

This kind of structure was part of what almost died off in most of the world at the end of the Punic Wars, but the land use laws of Ireland and indeed most of the ethics were still there until the 17th Century. It is a time when hereditary kings did not exist and FREEDOM was the most valuable resource of adventurous and creative or daring people. Brotherhood was real and women were equal. There was enough of it left in Carthage when Aristotle visited for him to be impressed with the Democratic reality of the society. In reference to Jesus, I would tend to agree with what you said.

But there is a lot more to it. THE DAVID are also (in an earlier time) THE BRUCE or Bruttii. His family were very wise and had been back to Melchizedek if not before that. His brother was the leader of the Essenes and he was from the wealthy stock of Solomon. I believe he went to India and other places. I am almos t certain he spent time with Comarius who tutored Cleopatra in Egypt. There is a reason the Gnostics saved the Dag Hammadi Scrolls that give the best insight to Jesus and his brothers. They were willing to die for it.

As you know the families and even community of Jews still help each other get a head start in whatever business they are into. I hear you get to fail a couple of times if necessary too. But the corruption of values and the denominational in-fighting has even affected Samoa in the last decade. So I can not point to any large scale current models of what kind of society was looked over and advised by the pan-tribal Druids who treated the whole of their society with respect. The Cathars might have been their last large-scale attempt. They were scientists and administrators and not religious as we think of churches. In fact churches were outdoors and they had nothing to hide.

Author of Diverse Druids. Columnist for The ES Press Magazzine, Guest writer at World-Mysteries.com

Author:: Robert Baird
Keywords:: Emerson, Swedenborg, Carlyle
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Future Shock

Futurists like Alvin Toffler and his wife are important parts of any informed citizens reading. Naisbitts forward to Marilyn Fergusons The Aquarian Conspiracy was part of my introduction to other futurists. I am not sure that the New Age has advanced a great deal since he wrote that forward for her book however. Let me assure you there is nothing new about the New World Order or the New Age philosophies. From the days of the Antonines in the first century BCE the local authority and borders have been established in ever-increasing bureaucracy. The Oxford History of the Roman World goes on to say: More significant is the interference in the financial affairs of cities which became widespread during the second century AD we find a momentous departure from the traditional laissez-faire attitude toward government which had hitherto prevailed.

Toffler appears to have been right about the formation of Economic Unions and more International co-operation but I think the corp orate behemoths are more responsible for it than any real effort at efficiency. Bureaucracy might be increasing a great deal more once sentient robots make it unnecessary to have people doing much of the menial labor they now perform. The police or drug-pushers in government are already too numerous. All in all I can assure you there are very few people who understand the Physiocrats and the Hegelian Dialectic and I am not convinced that futurists are looking into clear crystal balls. In fact the Mayans seem to be more correct. The ethical malaise that includes secret agencies and clubs for men whose nature requires more power rather than more abundance for all life on earth is not being addressed. Most people are unwilling to do any real learning about the controls that are increasing through bet ter science and all manner of immoral attitudes. Justice is a hard thing to find in our present world.

Author of Diverse Druids, Columnist for The ES Press, Guest writer at World-Mysteries.com

Author:: Robert Baird
Keywords:: Physiocrats, Sentient robots
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Lance Rants on Human Religions

Human Religion indeed; Ha Ha Ha; Religion is a real Human Problem, from the VooDoo witch doctors in Haiti, to the African religions, which say if a woman does not have five living kids that the gods are saying she is unworthy when the mortality rate is 5:1 meaning she has to have 25 kids for five to survive? Then it becomes the Worlds Problem to feed them? And then the notion that the only way to get rid of AIDS is to have sex with a virgin, so they run around looking for 4 year olds who are still virgins.

But all the World Religions although many are somewhat better, are not much really. Religion is something that the first world no longer needs, as civilizations of human kind have out paced the usefulness of these make believe stories. I predict 30 years until the end of religion, if religion does not destroy them selves thru in-fighting.

Personally religon does not affect me, and provides some sound and fury to participate in for merely opinion sake? Excitin g the brains chemicals arguing over irrelevance in the life experience. But from outside the religious cave flickerings, it is obvious that religion is one of the major problems keeping humans from a one-world common cause to unite the species in celebrating what it is to be alive as humans in this excellent gift of life. So why kill each other? Seems rather ridiculous.

Religious Wars and Culture Clashes go on to this day, but again, if one group tries to kill another then the revenge, fear and fight and flight kicks in and thus reciprocal responses until the fictitious hell freezes over? Well, isn't that just a wonderful life's mission indeed? Do we really need religion at all? Consider this in 2006.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: Human Religions
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Academic Contradiction

The liberal based bias in academia is totally laughable as these folks attempt to convince us that they are smarter than us and the common sense is a relative term and based in perception? Oh really now?

Have you ever considered the basis for this argument of theirs in their liberal skewed Utopian view of the world? Utter nonsense indeed, actually a 12 th century popper could make a better argument than that my dear sir. The liberal land of academia tells us that we must never tell others what to do and that we should see everything from their perspective, as well as our own.

Then they put forth absolute horsesheet and tell us to dump our own thoughts and see it from their perspective. Then they try to pull rank saying that they have this degree in such a subject or a PhD in another, which means they are smarter to judge such things? Yet all a PhD is proof you have surrendered your views and your beliefs to that which was taught, tested and discussed in order t o get that piece of paper proving you know what you are talking about.

Yet in reality you now know what they are talking about and have ditched your own thoughts in the matter. And in doing so are so utterly brain washed and convinced you are right you will not see the common sense perspective? Gee whiz folks this is hypocrisy at its finest, reminds me of some of the largest world religious organizations. Consider this in 2006.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: Academic Contradiction
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

The Galileo Conspiracy: 5 Questions Your Science Professors Hope You Never Ask

As a young lad, I took on my first scientific experiment simply because I could. Like most curious youngsters who own walky-talkies, I could only resist for so long the urge to bury one of them (well behind enemy lines) in the bread aisle at the local grocery store, to see what startled shoppers might make of extroverted wheat. This, my first foray into the field of agorology -- the very scientific study of shopping, shoppers and shoppingcarts -- told me just what I needed to know.

Would they simply scurry off, fearing all that is both sourdough and articulate, or might they try to hunt down the source of the taunting loaves? The jovial, phoney French accent that greeted each customer in the aisle proved harder to maintain -- while trying hard not to laugh -- than I had anticipated. In the end, fear of the manager (bigcheesophobia) cut short the data-gathering event, but not before we -- Tony (my assistant) and I -- had learned far too much. We now knew the inside Truth about science, kept hidden for many ages: it's a real kick in the pants.

Much time passed, and the California State University (at Hayward) received, and then quite foolishly approved, my application for admission. There I learned that the representatives of science bore the right to decide all matters of cultural importance; that scientists could provide the answers we need; and that science is self-correcting, and so marches forward with unrelenting progress. Just look at the microwave ovens, and the GPS gadgets in our cars. Science carries the badge of authority in all matters of knowledge. Or so the story goes.

But then it happened. I took my first history of science class, and began studying the items that interested me, even if they weren't on the menu. Then came the individual study cou rse in the philosophy of science. By then I had meandered into areas of study best dubbed plainly unauthorized. Here, I had realized that the science textbook authors (and most of my science professors) had completely -- I believe the scientific term is -- discombobulated almost everything they had taught me in my science classes.

Oh, they managed the empirical details in the books well enough. Like motorcycle riders who smile too often, the experts had strained out the empirical gnats with an aggressive and precise toothpick. But conceptual camel-swallowing became the order of the day. In other words, their story of what science actually is, how scientists employ its methods, and what science can actually accomplish -- the whole story surrounding the details -- proved phonier than a well-modulated, French accent in a grocery store.

To help illustrate these well-educated fibs, which I have boiled down to five for the sake of brevity, I have put this section in th e shape of a question and answer format. Here sit before the readers eyes THE five questions your science professors hope you never ask.

Question 1. Professor, isn't it true, that when you call a model or theory true merely because it makes accurate predictions that you in fact commit the fallacy called affirming the consequent?

Answer: You'd better believe it, Bucko. And nearly all scientists do this on a regular basis. Coincidentally enough, so do the textbooks these guys write. If a mother, then also a woman seems obvious enough. In logic, this takes the form, If P, then Q. But reasoning in the reverse direction leads to trouble. If a woman, then a mother [Q, therefore P doesn't ring true at all. Many women do not practice motherhood. Likewise, If my theory is true, we should find 'Q' to be the case [If P, then Q does not in any way validate the reverse, We did find 'Q' to be the case, therefore my model is true [Q, therefore P.

This is like the man who argues that If it is bread, it does not talk. It does not in fact talk, therefore it must be bread. Imagine that: science professors make a career of reasoning that poorly, and your sandwich never said a word.

Question #2. Professor, isn't it true that many highly successful theories in the past gained the allegiance of entire scientific communities, only to suffer rejection later as so much molarky by the same group?

Answer: Yes. In fact Dr. Larry Laudan, former chair of the history and philosophy of science department at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote a book (Science and Values) where he catalogued over 30 such theories. He indicated that he could have lengthened his list extensively (and others have done this). These Truth-status flip-floppers trounce about like a salmon on deck, where tru e yesterday becomes false today. Here, Truth comes with an expiration date like raspberry yogurt. And who knows, these theories may yet make a comeback -- only to get smoked again (as salmon are want to do).

This tells us that theoretical science shows itself fickle when it comes to Truth-telling. In court, they call this perjury, but let us avoid the unpleasantries of name-calling. One commentator on this problem recently put it quite sublimely in these words: If the history of science were a single person, it would present to the world just that sort of person we should least want to see driving heavy machinery or carrying sharp object s.

Question #3. Professor, isn't it true that theories considered false today by the scientific majority, as well as in the past, have often turned out to be very useful? And doesn't this show that no established relationship between true theories and useful theories exists?

Answer: Yes, and yes. And this shows from the empirical facts of history that any theory might be highly useful, and yet utterly false, so that it's utility offers no real guide to whether or not it's true. And you guessed it: Dr. Laudan has a long list of these successful-but-false theories too. And he isn't the only one.

Question #4. Isn't it true professor that scientists often resolve the contest between rival theories by choosing the one as more probably true which appears either simpler or more elegant than the others, and doesn't this tell against the alleged objectivity of what is supposed to be a Truth-seeking enterprise, reducing it to the status of a Miss America beauty pageant?

Answer: Yes, but don't tell my wife or she won't let me go to work either.

Question #5. Professor, isn't it true that various scientists working in different fields put to use a wide array of different methods, depending on factors like which field of study they work in, the nature of the claim under question at the moment, and the like? And doesn't this rather abolish the popular myth that anything like THE scientific method has ever actually existed?

Answer: Of course. Philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend at UC Berkeley wrote a book in the late 90's entitled On Method, which proves just that point. Brain-scanning Neurologists do not do anything like what mechanics do when the latter search to find out how much pollution your car puts out. They use different instruments, and entirely different methods. Some methods involve developing computational models to run different stress-condition scenarios (structural engineers do this), while others amount to sticking a fancy wand up your car's tail pipe.

Conclusion: The heroic model of science -- with scientists in the driver's seat as the keepers of true knowledge -- amounts to a political ploy designed to exalt those with white labcoats as the final arbiters of Truth about what kind of world this really is. But the kind of reasons scientists (and their textbooks) must invoke to prop up this flimsy mythology make no headway against the empirical facts known to students of the history and philosophy of the sciences. Moreover, if stripped of their technical jargon, and rendered in the common tongue, such half-baked reasons would not earn s cientists a passing mark in a second-semester logic course at any decent college.

The way I see it, if you are going to try to fool people, you might as well go all the way, and head for the aisle with the heckling rye.

Carson Day has written some 1.3 gazillion articles and essays on all manner of topics. These aim to glorify God and offer people real help to live wisely and well. You can visit Carson's websites at http://ophirgold.blogspot.com (The Omniblog, where Carson blogs everything) or http://extremeprofit.blogspot.com (Carson's Day Trading Outpost). Thanks for stopping by.

Author:: Carson C. Day
Keywords:: philosophy science, scientific method, Antirealism, Kuhn, false theories, scientific models, Truth
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Ants as Brains: Emergence

Introduction

Questions concerning the nature of thought characterise the history of our development as human beings. In his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Rene Descartes divided body and Mind. Following 300 years of intellectual development during the Age of Enlightenment the notion of a thinking machine was posited by Turings simple question: Can machines think? Modern cognitive theory has examined many models of Mind, predominantly based around the idea of computing machines.

In this essay I shall argue that an ant nest contains all of the necessary and sufficient criteria to be considered a model of Mind. I shall begin by summarising modern approaches to the idea of thought and intentionality, looking at some of the earlier psychological developments and showing how these grew into the predominantly Symbol-processing hegemony of the mid to late 20th Century. I shall then touch briefly on the reassessment of the Standard Social Science Model (Toobey & Cosmides, 1992) and show how Evolutionary Psychology proposed an alternative approach.

Having laid a base for understanding ideas related to thought and intentionality, I shall look at the predominant and diametrically opposed theories concerning models of the Mind and examine them in the light of two constraints, the first being that any model of the Mind should be compatible with the Evolutionary evidence concerning adaptability, and the second that such a model should take into account the flexibility and universal nature of behaviour. Following Wells (1996) I will propose a simple Adaptationist model that fulfils both criteria.

The third section of the essay will argue that the Adaptationist model has much in common not only with standard machine or computer architecture but also with the humble ants nest, and draw comparisons between neurons and ants. I will draw briefly on the notions of Emergence Theory and Ant Algorithms to illustrate my points, and argue that the ant nest is an adequate model of Mind, fulfilling all constraints as noted previously. Finally, I will summarise the discussion.

Understanding Thought

In order for us to understand thought, I have chosen to look at it from the perspective of problem solving and learning. For a long time it was thought that learning was one of the things that differentiated humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. In 1911, Edward Thorndike published work showing that there was more to it than that. Experiments on cats and other animals showed that given a simple task to perform in order to receive food, animals tested over a number of trials began reducing the time necessary to perform the task. This reduction came about through what he called trial and error, and accidental success a phase most o ften reduced to trial and error.

Thorndike noted that through satisfying certain requirements, animals were able to learn particularly when they practiced the action many times, a finding characterised as the learning curve. Work by Pavlov and the Behaviourists Watson & Skinner developed these ideas and led to an understanding that learning occurs not when the stimulus and reward appear together, but when there is some discrepancy between an expected coincidence and what actually happens. If the Mind makes a prediction error expecting a reward after a stimulus and not getting it, or vice versa then the Mind must change its expectations : it must learn. Subsequent work has found that this pattern of learning related to conditioning and surprise is ubiquitous in nature.

It was once a very commonly held belief that the Mind was nothing more than an empty slate written on by repeated patterns of reward and punishment. As Thomas Aquinas commented, there is nothing in the intellect which was not previously in the senses. A model of Mind would thus be nothing more than a set of learned rules in situation x, do action y. However, in examining this idea, Harlow (1958) showed that baby monkeys did in fact have fairly well developed instincts. Given a choice between a wire-frame surrogate mother which provided food and a cloth mother which did not, Behaviourist theory predicts that the monkey would go directly for that which provided food. Instead, as the images show, the monkeys clearly preferred the cloth mother and used the wire mother only to feed.

Later work by Mineka et al (1986: cited in Ridley, 2003) at the University of Wisconsin investigated the instinctual fear of snakes in lab-reared and wild-reared Rhesus monkeys. Reared in the lab, the animals had no prior exposure to snakes. The psychologists showed the monkeys a videotape of wild-reared monkeys reacting with horror to snakes. Within 24 minutes, the lab monkeys acqui red a fear of snakes. The psychologists then edited fake flowers, a toy snake, a toy rabbit, and a toy crocodile into the video. Tests later showed that after 40 to 60 seconds of exposure to each object, the monkeys feared only the toy snakes and crocodiles.

Through these and many other studies it seems that we can see the Mind as a combination of learned and instinctual behaviours : how, though, does the Mind work? In 1949, Donald Hebb suggested that :

When an axon of cell A is near enough to excite cell B and repeatedly or persistently takes part in firing it, some growth process or metabolic change place in one or both cells such that As efficiency as one of the cells firing B, is increased.

Together with the notion of back propagation, proposed in the late 1950s by Frank Rosenblatt and comprising the notion that simple weightings and error procedures can induce learning, a view to the Mind as a connected architecture of perceptrons intended to mirror n eurons in a simple way was introduced and came to be known as Connectionism. By manipulating Symbols according to simple rules, these networks mimicked real-world states and could provide convincing evidence that a computer could behave like a Brain.

The problem with connectionism is that, as the contemporary thinker Steven Pinker commented, it is rather like a stone soup the more vegetables one adds, the better it tastes. While true that the Brain is open to learning, the more one adds some level of semantic content, the more the syntax seems to make sense. This problem that of meaning, or understanding, has dogged all attempts to build models of the Mind. Alan Turings famous Turing Test (1950) suggested that a solution to the problem of whether a machine can think could be answered by whether sa id machine were able to convince an interrogator that it were human solely through its answers to questions. This test has stood the test of time.

As we ended the 20th Century, then, models of Mind had been built on a range of foundations and theories, of which some were touched on above. Models were built on the idea of the general purpose computer, or von Neumann machine a set of tasks and a set of data related to these tasks. Predominantly, models used Symbols to represent meaning or semantics. In their 1992 paper, The Psychological Foundations of Culture, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides argued that the idea of Mind as a number of content independent or domain general mechanisms which had no connection with Evolutionary or psychological foundation was radically defective. They called this set of the ories the Standard Social Science Model, and established the basic principals of what would thenceforward be known as Evolutionary Psychology.

Models of the Mind

The notion of programmability is fundamental to modern computing. A program is a series of instructions that is stored in memory and executed by the processor it specifies the functional relationship between the input a machine received and the output it produces. The ability to program the machine is equivalent to an ability to change this relationship a point worth noting, since it highlights the huge range of useless purposes to which a general purpose machine can be put. A second general point is that complex computing operations can be performed by constructing complex internal models of the environment the program rarely interacts directly with the environment but rather through some interpretive layer.

In looking at and understanding the role of computers with respect to models of the Min d, there is one other aspect that is critical to our understanding the architecture of processors and the relationship between processors and programs. A processor is a special-purpose device designed to carry out a specific set of instructions these can be simple procedures such as addition and subtraction but can also contain the logical engines that make computers the powerful machines they are. These processors interact indirectly with the external environment through coded input and output. On the other hand, programs are most often sets of operations that are composed as sequences of basic instructions. They encode representations of the external world, and are executed by a central processor.

If we are to build a functioning model of the Mind, we have two clear constraints. Firstly, the Mind is a product of biological Evolution. This constraint stands in direct opposition to any dualism between body and Mind without introducing the problems of solipsism. The s econd constraint is that the Mind is capable of immense behavioural flexibility, including apparently indefinitely complex information processing. Wells (1996) refers to these two constraints as the Evolutionary constraint and the universality constraint, and notes that the difficulty of combining them both in a theory of cognitive architecture is difficult because they appear to be mutually incompatible :

The Evolutionary constraint leads in the direction of special-purpose mechanisms, and thus, in the direction of task-specific behaviour rather than universality; whereas the universality constraint leads in the direction of general-purpose mechanisms, and thus, in the direction of maximal behavioural flexibility but away from the space of designs that seem plausible given the Evolutionary constraint.

If human cognitive architecture is the result of Evolution, then as Tooby & Cosmides (1992) note, any given theory must be capable of explaining how we have solved the myriad problems that presented themselves over the Evolutionary timeframe. In their paper, cited above, the pair provide a substantial list of problems that evolving man solved including such things as capturing animals, mating, and cooperating. Typically, the argument given for how Evolution has solved these problems is through the selection of increasingly specialized mechanisms for example, the human eye.

The key issue here is that while such specialized mechanisms are extremely effective at solving specialized problems, they do so only by forfeiting an ability to address a more general class of problems that is, they fulfil the Evolutionary constraint, but not the universality constraint. Another problem is how Adaptations may combine for example, in an action or behaviour that combines both vision and movement.

Newell & Simon (1976) claimed that Symbols lie at the root of all intelligent action, going on to claim that A physical-Symbol system has the necessary and sufficient means for general intelligent action. This base, supported by the commonly held notion that human mental representations or Symbols are of the same kind as the representations used by computers, was extended to refer to all kinds of universal computational system and thus, by definition, Symbol systems can be said to fulfil the universality constraint.

Being universal machines, it is also the case that Symbol systems are programmable Symbol structures are programs and representations of objects and events in the external environment. This view of input and output relationship modifiers leads to the inherently attractive view of mental representations as structures in some kind of human machine language. However, herein lies a significant issue. A representation is always a representation for someone a danger which leads to an infinite regress. Searle (1980) saw this as a critical problem for Artificial Intelligence. In his famous Chinese Room argument, Searle suggested that for there to be any intentionality in a Symbol system, at some level there had to be an entity capable of understanding the Symbols otherwise, they would have no meaning.

We have seen that the Symbol systems approach satisfies the universality constraint. It remains unclear whether there is any level of compatibility with the Evolutionary constraint. The concern here is driven by the efficienc y of a generalized mechanism vs. a specific mechanism in solving a specific problem, combined with what we know of the pressures driving Evolution. Put bluntly, an organism equipped with a mechanism that avoids snakes will, over time, be more likely to survive than one whose generalized mechanism will require proof of the snakes danger before running away.

Additionally, Wells (1996) cites Conrads 1985 work into biological computation, which formalised study into computational systems along lines of programmability, efficiency and adaptability. The key message is as follows : unlike the human Brain, small changes in the structure of a program can lead to massive changes in behaviour or even lack of function. Whereas the Brain is gradually transformable, that is to say it only changes behaviour a small amount given small structural change up to an including the destruction of large parts of it this tends not to be the case in program-based systems. What is more, there is a concern in the relationship between the system and its inputs, in that a system operating without a program has no intermediary between it and the outside world a programmable system needs such inputs to be coded into a form that the processor can deal with.

It is clear that neither a Symbol-processing nor a strictly Evolutionary approach satisfies the constraints proposed. This is not to say, however, that there are not aspects of both that seem essentially correct : the idea of an aggregate of Adaptations working in parallel is not inherently flawed, but is hard to make universal. If, instead of a programmable Symbolic memor y and a processor rather like a computer, we assume the Brain to be like a processor, we may be able to take a step forward :

one should think of the set of Adaptations that Evolutionary psychologists consider to be the basis of cognitive architecture as the instruction set of a processor designed by Evolution The evolved processor is, among other things, a Symbol processor par excellence, but the Symbol structures it possesses are external (Wells, op. cit.)

By combining the evolved part of the Brain, a collection of specific mechanisms, with a processor possessing the power to carry out Symbolic instructions such as reading a map or cooking from a recipe, we have a view to a cognitive architecture that encompasses external Symbolic artefacts with which the thinker interacts. Memory, then, consists of a combination of external Symbol storage such as books, computer records and so on, and internal states which may have been adapted for in serving a specific mechanism and subsequently have a generalised function (Sherry & Schachter, 1987: cited in Wells, 1996).

Ant Nest as Brain

In examining models of the Mind, we considered two key constraints that any model should consider the Evolutionary evidence concerning adaptability, and that it should take into account the flexibility and universal nature of behaviour. The Adaptationist model proposed suggested a model of Mind comprising a number of specialized mechanisms making up the instruction set of a Symbol processor, combined with an external world incorporating Symbolic representations. It is my view that an ants nest provides a model of Mind along these lines that is only quantitatively and not qualitatively different from a human Brain.

In this model, I pro pose that the ants themselves function as a combination of neurons, synapses, and also work to bring sensory information into the overall nest. Thus the information gathered by a single ant and communicated to another may over time influence the behaviour of the nest, in much the same way that the presence of a heat source may influence a humans behaviour depending on its proximity and power. In order to make this model convincing, we need to consider each of the aspects of our Adaptationist model of Mind in turn and assess whether an ants nest model of Mind could be compelling.

We begin by looking directly at the Evolutionary constraint and understanding the idea of specific mechanisms suited to specific tasks. In all ants, development takes the ant through a number of changes in behaviour, which define what are called temporal castes. Thus, behaviour changes from caring for the queen, to digging & nest work, and finally to foraging and defense. In some ants, these ch anges can correspond to physical changes, with the soldier or major ants being significantly larger in size than the minor ants.

These different behaviour types are evolved mechanisms for coping with different requirements. If we see the nest as the model for the Mind, different means of interacting with the world dependent on requirement represent evolved mechanisms for dealing with incoming information where we see danger in the movement of a snake, so the ant nest reacts to unexpected shaking by furious activity which in some species may also herald the arrival of soldier castes to protect the nest. The different behaviour of different ant species dependent on Evolutionary environment is further evidence in this case.

In addition to this, there are many documented cases of symbiotic relationships with ants most common perhaps being that of aphids, which secrete a sweet liquid called honeydew. Normally this is allowed to fall to the ground, but around ants it is kept for them to collect. The ants in turn keep predators away and will move the aphids around to better feeding locations. It is my view that this behaviour can again be seen as evidence of the advanced nature of the ant nest and its suitability as a model of the Mind.

Our second area of concern when considering the ant nest and Adaptationist model together is that of the general purpose nature of the processor. We have already seen how the application of ants to the Travelling Salesman Problem resulted in solutions equivalent to those of other general purpose heuristic mechanisms, and it is my position that this evidences the ability of such a model to satisfy the universality constraint.

The third and most difficult area to consider is that of the ability of the processor to handle Symbol s to deal with semantic content. In order to avoid the problems faced by the Symbol-systems approach, the Adaptationist model proposed that the Symbols processed were those in the outside world. This view presupposes that for the human Mind to process said Symbols in a way consistent with meaning, the Symbols themselves must possess some form of significance that is, they are assumed to be the product of some Mind or Minds. All information presented to the Mind which is not of such a form would not be processed by the Symbol-processing aspect but rather by the appropriate mechanism.

Interpreting the idea of semantic content in this way leads us to the view that semantic content is nothing more than an aspect of the environment that has been changed in such a way as to impart a message. As any simple definition of ant communication would detail, ant communication is primarily through chemicals called pheromones. For instance, when a forager finds food on its way home, it will leave a trail along the ground, which in a short time other ants will follow. When they return home they will reinforce the t rail, bringing other ants, until the food is exhausted, after which the trail is not reinforced and so slowly dissipates. We recall that this was the method of interacting with the environment which was used in Ant Algorithms, and with good reason. I suggest that this level of semantic content, together with other aspects of the model considered is strong evidence for the conclusion that an ant nest is an adequate model of Mind.

Summary & Conclusion

I began this essay with a proposal to discuss the question that an ant nest is an adequate model of Mind. In order to examine this question, I first reviewed at a high level the notion of thought and some of the psychological history that relates to it, looking at specific examples related to the understanding of instinct vs. learned behaviour. I talked about the development of Connectionism and commented on the reassessment of the SSSM (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992) which gave rise to the field of Evolutionary Psychology.< /p>

I developed these ideas further in the second section of the essay, in which I looked at the twin constraints for any model of Mind these being the universality constraint and the Evolutionary constraint. I showed how predominant models cannot in truth satisfy both, and following Wells (1996) proposed a model of Mind in which the evolved Adaptations served as the instruction set for a highly efficient Symbol processor, these Symbols residing in the external world. This model satisfied both criteria.

Building on this model of Mind, I demonstrated how many of the characteristics of an ant nest have clear parallels in the theoret ical model, and used this similarity to suggest the ant nest as a model of Mind. Based on the evidence presented and the research done I therefore maintain that an ant nest has all of the necessary and sufficient criteria to model human thought & intentionality, and as such can be said to differ from the human Brain only in quantitative terms.

Author: Stephen Levy writes for Dispatx Art Collective.

Dispatx Art Collective was created in 2004 by Oliver Luker, Vanessa Oniboni and David Stent. We work with collaborating artists to develop ideas and display works related to specific themes.

The website functions as a rigorous concept-space for the exploration of these ideas and is used both for the exhibition of completed works and as a focus for the exploration and advancement of collective projects.

Press : [english [castellano

Author:: Stephen Levy
Keywords:: Emergence,Adaptation,Psychology,Evolution,Mind,Brain,Symbol
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

I Want Sleep

Do you often find yourself craving sleep because, well perhaps you are not getting enough these days? Yet when you lie down to sleep sometimes you are not as tired as you thought or you simply cannot turn off your brain? Well I am sure you are not alone. And you are probably one of those who is quite active in your life.

But all in all most folks are rather lazy and if they could, they might actually prefer to sleep all day rather than do anything else you see? Humans are not the only species, which would sleep all day if it could, there are other animals who do the same. For instance take our house cats for instance, they sure look cool, but they never do very much and they sleep some 2/3 of their live away, must be nice.

In my next life I want to come back as a cat you see? Indeed and I want an owner just like me to take care of me too. What a life being a cat. So back to our subject you want sleep, yes well dont we all? In fact when polls are taken of what w ould you like more of in your life; people say sleep, beauty, sex and money and sometimes in that order, so what I am saying is that you are not alone in your needs or desires.

Yet in considering all this we must also ask ourselves are we not getting enough sleep or are we just getting lazy? And if you got more sleep would you still want more on top of that? Indeed this is also what studies and research show, so think on this in 2006.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: I Want Sleep
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

How to Arrive at Truth

Even the greatest philosophers, modern as well as ancient, couldnt agree on a definition of their field of learning. No set of words seem to adequately present or represent this subject which, by all accounts, must be the largest, though not necessarily the greatest, of them all. But no matter. As a race of incredibly inquisitive beings, right from the very first day that we are born, there exists within all of us a profound yearning to know.

Maybe it is as the Evolutionists proclaim. Simply that the effort to know or to find out is none other than a manifestation of the basest of all desires. And this, they say, is the quest to survive. Do you suppose that I have just arrived at some Truth? Hardly. The definition of an unTruth is that even if a thousand indicators point to a singular conclusion, it only takes one instant of something to point the other way and the entire system falls over in a pathetic heap. Not my rules, but the tenets of science as its overbearin g presence guards against any individual who dares to purport some new idea or theory.

Darwin was indeed an individual of immense capacity for genius and of course as with all people of such acumen and thinking, he was at least a generation ahead of his time. He painstakingly, systematically, methodically, scientifically, empirically, observed, absorbed and explained what he saw in nature until a central theme to all his work was born. He concluded that all life was connected. Over time, a lesser species led to a more sophisticated one by a series of mutations of its genetic code, preserving the most valuable assets while discarding the rest. He observed this purely from a macroscopic viewpoint and extrapolated to he microscopic. This propagation of the Fittest was affectionately coined as the process of natural selection.

Despite some very large scientific holes in the argument for the theory of Evolution, not least of all the hitherto unexplained gaps in the genealogy of many species, this does nothing to shake the confidence of todays scientific world in the theory. But scientists are for the most part very clever people, and they too have consciences and rather like the idea of being able to sleep a little easier at night. So, they say that any doctrine based on the demonstration of scientific rigour that is observable, measurable and repeatable, stemming from things such as mathematical proofs or empirical evidence, is true. But guess what, this brilliant method for discovering Truth has actually been more useful in keeping unTruths out than facilitating the discovery of new ones.

Ask any scientist you like: Do you think we are anywhere near to collectively knowing all there is?, and you will get the same answer. No. Now ask: How much do you think we do know, 1%, 10%, 50%..? The question is silly. Of course it is. I don't think any scientist worth his salt will put a percentage on it. In other words, the admission tha t we don't know everything is made without hesitation but as to how much we know, there is no answer. But the scientist has a very cunning excuse out of this, saying that given time, all things may be known and all things may be explained using exactly the same scientific methods. A statement of Faith if I ever heard one. In any case even this brilliant method for finding Truth is flawed. Case in point is that, for more than two centuries, Newton's laws of motion stood unchallenged until Einstein came along and said that the mass of an object can no longer be assumed to be constant under all circumstances because if it is made to accelerate near to the speed of light, mathematics as well as observable evidence suggest its mass will increase.

Given the above, did science abandon its methods? No. If therefore we can be fooled into thinking that something is true using our current methods, who is to say that any of the things we know are true. This is just cold, light-of- day logic. But surely, I hear you say, you can't seriously suggest that we should abandon our scientific methods just because one or two theories have subsequently been proven to be false? Furthermore, what about the countless examples of scientific Truth prised out of nature's grasp because we stuck to these stringent methods.

Well, I led you straight to it. A rare example of leading a horse to water AND making it drink. You see, scientists hate this idea of the majority view. Consider how justice in the world is dispensed. Judges use the idea that the majority view is the correct view. That is, if all members of a jury cannot agree on whether a person is innocent or guilty of some crime, the majority verdict is then sought. But imagine if every quest for scientific Truth was put to the test using the same criterion. For example suppose someone proposes that the moon is made of cheese. We randomly choose, say, a hundred adults, ask their opinion and if at least 80% sa y it's true, based on whatever evidence is provided, we embrace the theory and place it among our annals of Truth. How silly, I hear you say again. Yes, almost as silly as accepting the scientific criteria for discovering Truth because the majority of scientists say it is the right way and firmly believe that it can be used to discover all Truths.

Now, this brings me nicely to an individualistic method of arriving at Truth. One which also depends on a majority view but only one person at a time is asked to accept or reject it. This is where the autonomy of the individual comes to the fore. If a person accepts some system of Belief not based on scientific Truth, we call it Faith. The atheistic point of view regarding this is to say the least, blunt. The person who adopts Faith as the central tenet of his or her life is surely one lacking in confidence, preferring to look for illusory means by which to improve or enrich their lives. But I must differ. I think that the o nly thing that separates a person of Faith from the person with no Faith is that the former is prepared to believe whereas the latter is prepared to disbelieve. The important thing here is not to attempt to say that either one or the other is the better way to live. Many atheists have converted and many Faithful have turned away from their Faith based on their personal convictions and experiences, born out of the autonomy afforded to every individual.

Even if we are taught one way or another during childhood years, our autonomy does not mature until we are free to accept or reject those teachings in later years. So, here now is the crunch. Those who have some sort of Faith in God, believe also that there is a much greater, infinitely superior existence beyond the one being experienced here. For whatever reason, we are earthbound for a period of time and when this ends, the sum total of our actions, reactions and inactions is used to calculate for us a place in our spir itual destiny. This is undoubtedly an extraordinary statement of hope and comfort to all those that Faithfully devote themselves to their creed. As for the atheists, they prefer to think that they cannot allow themselves to be fooled by the trappings of some Religion that for the most part seeks to restrict even the joys that are possible. When we are free to choose, there is no criterion other than that which weighs heavily on our hearts.

The right to choose and the choices an individual makes are the real ingredients of Faith and Truth.

I am the author of a supernatural/fantasy novel called Will of Dreams which I hope the article above will incite sufficient interest within you to consider clicking on the link http://www.willofdreams.com leading you to the website dedicated to my book.

Author:: Yigit Djevdet
Keywords:: Truth, Evolution, Religion, Belief, Faith, Darwin, natural selection, Survival, Fittest, Philosophy
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips