Mission

Remember that cartoon where Daffy Duck is selling the push-button home of the future to Elmer Fudd and the ingenious devices end up jacking his house way into the air? That's why. _________________ "For a small fee, I can install this little blue button to get you back down." -Daffy Duck

I have two favorite quotes from that movie: "Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" "Yeah, I know, I got a real problem with that." and "Reach!" "Is this a holdup?" "It's a science experiment!" Ok, your turn. (Somebody's turn.)

If someone can show me a better way, I'm open to that. The simpler the theory, the better - so long as it accurately describes the event or object. However, Chaos Theory is not simple at its roots. Nor is it intuitive; in fact, I have found it to be repeatedly counterintuitive. Unfortunately, it's also appears to be correct in describing many events and therefore must be carefully considered. Our minds are not simple. We cannot yet understand how they function. I find this fascinating. The workings of my own mind is sometimes counterintuitive and complex. As I watch myself making decisions, I find that my actions aren't aligned with my decisions - indicating a possible bifurcation - two alternating states of mind. What part of my mind doesn't agree with the conscious decision made and why?

Sorry about that. After reading through my first post, my sister, the genetic research doctor, decided to print it out. (Hey Suzanne, if you're still reading this: (Whatever this guy means.)) I must confess that half of this is me solidifying my thoughts by way of text and the other half is sharing ideas with those who enjoy such discussions. I love discussing things like this with those who can add to the ideas. (I'm still pondering the bicameral mind. Perhaps it is that each person reaches an interstice in their life where they choose to discard their bicameral mindset? Could it be an individual rather than societal event?)

I think we need a policy that says that if no one gets your quote within two or three days you win or lose or push or whatever. At the very least you can reveal the movie. Otherwise this topic just dies. I'm going to throw a (fairly) easy one out there for the time being. "What about the locomotive?" "It'll be a spectacular wreck. Too bad no one will be around to see it."

Oh, yeah. That one really threw me when I realized who it was. Too bizarre. Is Priscilla QOTD worth watching? All I've ever heard about it was that it was weird. I enjoy weird at a certain level, but is it weird good or weird bad? (On my recent trip to Oz, we visited the place where most of it was filmed.)

The one way screw remover! If that wasn't desigined by a couple of quantum mechanics, I don't know what was.

Here's one for you, Captain Grey (it was another case of surprise for me). Julian Glover played Aristotle Kristatos in For Your Eyes Only. I kept wondering where I had seen him before. Then I remembered, he was in charge of operating some BIG machinery in a movie you may have seen once or twice.

Have you ever been watching a movie or listening to an actor/actress and suddenly realized they were in some drastically different role that caught you off guard? It happens to me all the time, usually with lesser known actors. I was listening to Vince Vaugh being interviewed on a radio show yesterday when it suddenly hit me that he was Nick Van Owen in Jurassic Park: The Lost World. (I usually associate Vaugh with comedies that I can't be bothered to see. Thus the surprise.) Similarly, I recently saw an actor in the movie Tomorrow Never Dies playing Admiral Kelley of the HMS Bedford whom I thought a really cool choice for such a bit part. Then it hit me; that was the guy who played Vogel in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade! (Michael Bynre, as it happens.) I was also taken aback when I figured out that Doc Ock was also Satipo in Raiders of the Lost Ark - Alfred Molina. Has that ever happened to you?

Back into the realm of chaos theory and the organization of the mind. Along came Robert Stetson Shaw and his group of cronies - called the Dynamic Systems Collective or the Chaos Cabal ( ). They had "discovered" the chaos state using some fairly simple simulataneous systems of equations and an analog computer. Like kids with a new toy, they began to see chaotic systems in everything including flapping flags, dripping faucets, tumbling leaves and even the tree that sprouted the leaf. One of the members, Doyne Farmer, made this provocative statement: "On a philosophical level, [chaos theory] struck me as an operational way to define free will, in a way that allowed you to reconcile free will with determinism. The system is deterministic, but you can't say what it's going to do next. At the same time, I'd always felt that important problems in the world had to do with the creation of organization, in life or intelligence." Wow! I love this statement. I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes more sense than anything I've heard about the issue of free will vs. determinism. I think we've even discussed this issue on the forum - are we self-guided and able to choose our path or are we destined to follow some pattern codified in our minds? Does our make-up somehow guide our decision-making process? Farmer suggests, then, that our minds operate in a chaotic fashion ( ), where determinism gives way to chaotic free will. He is telling us that chaos theory - which, as previously noted, indicates that there is order underlying what we perceive as chaos - explains how free will and fate can coexist. The system is deterministic in nature (fated to wind up at the same end point regardless of what happens), but the path is chaotic in that we can't predict the path of the system successfully (the path is free to go whatever way it will in getting to the end point.) This is either silly nonsense or it's a huge idea. It's interesting that this point, which I have been pondering for a week and a half, should be presaged by the concept of the bicameral mind (which is something I am still thinking about, John. I was explaining the concept to another friend of mine named John only last night over several bottles of wine. He suggested that the bicameral mind is still among us. But then, John is a cynic. (And proud of this fact.)) Interestingly, when asked what the problem with the world was, no less than Jonas Salk said that the trouble was that most men today don't think. (As reported by Earl Nightingale.) Nightingale went on to expound upon the idea, saying that many people never get out of the non-thinking "follow the leader" role. He opined that the trouble was that they aren't following a leader at all, they are following other followers. (Hey John! Perhaps we can now explain collective consciousness! ) Anyhow, in the theory of the bicameral mind, there was some point in time where Jaynes suggests that we became self-aware and autonomous. According to him, before that time we were basically non-thinking automatons who did the will of the gods or voices or perhaps even some convoluted instinct (although Jaynes doesn't use this last point to illustrate his theory). The implication is that we could not have free will until we shed our reliance on the gods/voices/instinct and that didn't occur until (I'm guessing) the Age of Enlightenment for Europeon people and much later for more "primitive" people. It's a rather tidy way to explain instinct, really. What if, supposing, free will is instead an artifact of chaos theory at work? We have a system that's going along smoothly (non-chaotic in nature) that suddenly starts to diverge as we choose a different path (chaotic in nature) until it settles back into routine (returning to non-chaotic). This is how chaos appears in most chaotic systems. It goes along linearly for awhile, then it "splits" (called a bifurcation in the graph) and alternates between two points (Two ideas? A choice?). Then it splits again; and again, etc, until it becomes unpredictable and chaotic in nature (free will?). It is neigh impossible to predict where the next point will be on the graph at this point. However, within the chaos are pockets of organization that eventually give way to more chaotic behavior. (Determinism interrupted by free will?) This might also better explain some Jaynes theory - perhaps there was less chaotic mental activity in the past than there is today - but I am more and more inclined to discard Jaynes' idea. There were flashes of non-god driven thinking throughout history which defies his basic premise. His theory suggests that the bi-cameral mind exists up to a point in the history of a people where they discard their gods or instinct or whatever. This doesn't explain the aberrations. (I may still read his book if I can find it at the local library.) Oh that's enough for now.

What the heck is a clutch bit? Oh my...maybe that's why I could never get that stupid Delorean running properly.

Ah, Schrodinger's poor abused cat. (I suppose I asked for that.) However (while we're making quantum metaphor cocktails), there is no cat. Einstein said so. ______________________ "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Albert Einstein

Chee, John! I had to look both of those things up! I suspect I'm missing some of your meaning, but here we go... I disagree with what I just quickly read on Plato's Cave. The names we assign to things are just constructs to simplify thinking. We could assign new names to the the shadow of the book, (well, we do - "shadow") and even for each different actual book (well, and we do that too - the title), but it's easier to simplify the category of printed, bound matter to the idea of "book" and reflections (shadows, etc.) of that matter to "book" as well. We could be being fooled by Plato's Puppets (which would be a grand name for an alternative band), but most of the time we would probably be justified in identifying the shadow as "book," even if, in the most rigorous meaning of the word, we were wrong. Each book is inherently different on the microscopic level, so technically each should be labelled (since we're labelling) differently according to what I glean from the Plato's Cave argument. Then again how similar are materials on the atomic or subatomic level? (I don't know the answer to this.) I do know that most things a made up primarily of empty space at that level. I wonder what percentage is different between one book and another? Then the wheels fall of the train of thought... When I was deeply involved in training and success principles, I came across an idea I absolutely love: perception. If I were ever to write a success principle book, it would be about perception. Everything is perception. You "hate" something? That is only your perception of an object acted upon by your perception of past experiences with that thing. You see a book? That is only your perception based on past mental linkages and cultural memes. You are unhappy because your cat died? That is just your perception of an event based on past perceptions of the thing you have perceived as "cat" - hell, your neighbor may be happy that your cat died - he/she perceives it differently in his/her mind. Everything is as you perceive it and perception occurs only within the confines of your mind. Even the culturally-held memes are just conventions that you have agreed to buy into - based (presumably) upon your perception that they are good. However, if we were not able to simplify the world, the information overload would be crippling. Our minds must find patterns to simplify the world. Perhaps the simplification is chaotic in nature. Perhaps I am babbling. As for the bicameral mind... The gods of the pyracy board are now ordering me to go get an egg and cheese croissant at BK. I would think the gods were trying to kill me, except, of course, I don't think. I obey the gods. (I don't quite know what to make of the bicameral mind theory. Half of me wants to read Jaynes book, the other half wants to discard it as arbitrary fiddle-faddle. The third half wants an egg and cheese croissant.)

Actually, I have suspected that you may all be figments of my imagination. Except posts occured when I was gone and before I was here; something I can't quite explain.

Your theory is loads simpler than mine. At least there's no torx nuts. Who the hell has torx fittings?

They should release a life-sized fig of the undead monkey. I'd buy it if it were less than $100.

I have read some mystical (primarily cicumstantial and dominated by hearsay) stuff about cerebral interconnectedness. The universal mind and all that. I can's say I'm personally convinced. Neither do I dismiss it out of hand. I tend to look to myself to resolve matter for myself, so I mostly eschew the idea until more positive proof is presented to me. This theory neither embraces nor discards the notion. We had a guy who ran around his room in one of the haunted houses shouting "Braaaaains! Braaaaains!" for three straight weeks. Imitating some zombie movie I was lead to understand. Three. Straight. Weeks.

I remember seeing the first Blackbeard and Anne Bonney in shops outside of the San Francisco Maritime Park. I have to agree with John_Young; not too impressive IMO. That 12" Blackbeard AF looks pretty good. Awfully clean kit, though.

I promised BlackJohn I was going to post this. Let me apologize in advance... So, I've been studying Chaos Theory lately and it got me to thinking about the workings of the human brain. Nobody is really sure how our minds work, they are sort of a black box, even to the experts. At first, I thought perhaps our minds behaved in a manner that defied mathematics. Then I realized that this takes us away from the realm of science and into the realm of mysticism. However, trusting in mysticism as an answer is a sure sign of ignorance (IMHO - feel free to take offense and write long diatribes defending mysticism. Perhaps that is what this topic is for.) So we come back to mathematics. This is where Chaos Theory comes in. Chaos Theory attempts, on some levels, to find some order in non-linear results of systems of equations. These are notoriously difficult to solve using normal mathematical procedures. Part of Chaos Theory suggests that they actually have an underlying order that is more an matter of repetition through scaling. What appears at one level reappears succesively at other levels as well. Our brains may be organized in this fashion, or at least in tune at some deep level with these sort of systems, as well. Many biological systems are fractal in nature (fractals essentially being a graphic representation of the sytems of non-linear equations and the order order that underlies chaos.) Some interesting ideas came out of the books I'm reading from noted Chaos theorists and I started link them together. Mitchell Feigenbaum studied this idea of scale in great detail, trying to understand at what point of distance an object becomes incomprehensible to us. This lead him to wonder about the brain's machinery of perception. How does it function? How do we sort the information that is constantly flowing into our minds? Some psychologists refer to humans as "deletion creatures." That is, we only perceive what our minds suggest is important to us. We somehow delete the things (sounds, movement, visually perceived objects) that are not important to us for the task at hand. Of course, the "task at hand" is defined by our minds. Feigenbaum felt that the brain, with its imaginative capability, adaptability and perception, seemed to be more flexible than classic physics and mathematics could describe. This process of deletion may offer an example of how attuned our minds are to chaos mathematics. Hmm. Sounds like gobbledegook. Let me offer an example. If you're focusing on a discussion with your friend in a restaurant, you are sorting out what is important (your friend - her words, ideas, appearance) from what is not (the hustle and bustle of sounds and people in the restaurant that are not coming from your friend). You are "deleting" the noise of the restaurant. How does our mind do this? Perhaps (just my thought) the "noise" of the restaurant can be described by a system of complex equations that are chaotic in nature. That way our minds, attuned to this pattern, can filter out the "organized chaos" of the background. Similarly, ouir minds may filter out the "irrelevant" visual field by some complex system of chaos-based mathematics. But what happens when the pattern is interrupted and the equations "change"? If, in our example, a waiter drops a tray full of glasses, there is a loud noise. This is called perturbing the system. Here there is a change in the system - a boundary is created. Your mind goes from focusing on your friend to the loud noise - to see if there is a concern, threat or problem that your mind must refocus on. (Humans are innately afraid of only two things - falling and loud noises.) How does the mind do that? We move rapidly from order (the conversation) to disorder (the loud noise) to order (focusing on what has happened, processing it and taking action or not taking action). In this bit of mental gymnastics, I believe what Feigenbaum suggested is that our minds operate in a fasion that could be described by chaos mathematics - that is using non-linear equations with underlying scaling order. Or, at the very least, we inherently recognize the chaotic pattern and are able to process it subconsciouly. Oy. That's enough for now. What a topic for a pirate site, eh? Once I sort it out a bit, I'll annoy you further with thoughts on free will from a group headed by Robert Stetson Shaw.

My quote is easy to Google, but I darest anyone to figure it out without Google. (Unless it goes for a day or two, in which case the heck with it.)

Jerimiah Johnson New quote: "All you have to do is sign the checks, tell us we're doing a good job, and crack your case of scotch when we have a good day. "

I am a headache! I quit drinking for 6 months just to do it. I never lost so much weight. The women where I work complained that I was too skinny. So I had to start drinking again. Halloween is almost over! My spider haunt is complete! No more working on pulley systems and fake spider webbing for me! Now I can finally get back to working on my house. (Hmm...maybe there's another haunt I can do instead.) ____________________ "Talking pictures, that means I'm out of a job. At last I can start suffering and write that symphony." "You're not out of a job, we're putting you in as head of the new music department." "Well, thanks, R.F.! At last I can stop suffering and write that symphony."

We had a guy that we assigned our own alignment to: Chaotic Random. He would jump off a bridge rather than cross it.

Neutral (And apparently I'm a girl in this test.) "A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutrality is a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil. After all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. The common phrase for neutral is "true neutral." Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. --excerpted from the Player’s Handbook, Chapter 6" I think I answered too many questions differently and the test put me at dead center. I would have expected to at least be lawful (definitely not chaotic.)

Methinks ye Googled it, good sir. That is not what it is called in the US.