Caraccioli

I was searching through the Feynman Lectures that I mentioned previously along with some modern commentary on them when I came across a very interesting explanation that I had not recalled of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. (This basically says that by observing something at the quantum level, we change it. He determined this through a series of thought experiments regarding the observation of electrons, the end result of which was that it was basically impossible to accurately determine both the speed and position of the electron because we altered the electron by trying to observe it.) Heisenberg's Unc. Principle has led to some truly absurd metaphysical statements that try to co-opt a quantum level idea and apply it to the real world. ("If we observe another person, we change them.") While this may be true, it is not scientifically provable by the Uncertainty Principle. Anyhow, what interested me was the explanation for why attempting to observe an electron changes its velocity and position. The problem Heisenberg determined (as the author, whose name escapes me, explained it) is that in order for us to observe the electron, we need to apply light to it. Light may not seem like it has physical properties, but it does. (I'll save the "wave/particle nature of light" explanation for another long-winded explanation at another time.) Anyhow, the light required to observe is what alters the position and/or the speed of the electron. It basically smacks into it and changes either the velocity or the position or both. Therefore, whatever position the electron was in going at whatever speed it was going, it is not either in a new position or going a new speed from being knocked about by the packet of light. So Heisenberg said we can't see the properties of the thing because in order to see it, we need light and in order to apply light, we change its movement. Maybe you all knew that and I'm just slow, but it sort of tosses all those silly statements about the mere act of observing something has some sort of mystical effect on the thing that causes it to somehow change. This is not necessarily true, once you realize that there is actually a physical effect going on according to Heisenberg. At the macroscopic level (where we perceive things like chairs and tables and whatnot) the physical effects of light are so minuscule as to be unnoticeable, so all that mumbo-jumbo you hear about science having proved that our observation of anything alters it is not actually, completely true. (Although this makes me wonder about that quantum security encoding stuff...how does that work?) So, as I understand it, it is not us that is affecting things through observation at the quantum level, it is our need for light so that we can actually see what's going on that affects things. Psychology has proven that there is another observation effect, of course, which basically has to do with people's need for attention and/or fears of being observed but that has nothing to do with quantum physics. That has to do with our perception. However, I'm tired of writing about this now...and anyone having read this far is probably tired of reading it.

Well, the quantum physical world is mostly space. It's just that we don't generally think in quantum physical terms - most people think in terms of their macro-world where the five senses rule. So from your macro-perspective, you're really not wrong when you think of it that way, but from a micro-perspective, you're also really not right, either. Confused? Read up on quantum physics and if you weren't confused at the outset, you soon will be. It confuses me when I get into it too deep. Much of it seems to be quite counter-intuitive. (Duchess probably understands it better than any of us. I suspect she's not reading this thread, though.) As for circular, never-ending things...that's how the world works. What goes around, comes around and all that. I like this perpetual thread. I think this is the longest we've held out on such a topic. I used to post on a mail list where the subject of circular reasoning alone would have gone on for a week, spinning off all kinds of other, related topics in the process. (That eventually got to be too much even for me.)

You know, I don't think I personally have enough knowledge to have a favorite bird. I like Eagles because I'm an Eagle scout, but that's a pretty poor reason to choose it as my "favorite." Somewhere in the great avian kingdom is an intelligent, curious, persistent little bird. That one, whatever cognomen we've assigned it, is probably my favorite. There are some great bird names, however. "Peregrine" is one of them. Roll it off your tongue a couple times...peregrine, peregrine, peregrine...it just sounds interesting and noble. Another interesting bird name is "Tufted Titmouse." All self-consciously generated naughty associations to the word "tit" aside, it's just a funny sounding name. No bird called a Tufted Titmouse could possibly be serious, could it? "Kestrel" has something of a majestic sound, don't you think? In fact, the raptors get a lot of neat sounding labels. A "falcon" sounds like a swift, dangerous, brooding sort of thing, doesn't it? "Goshawk" has a fascinating sound (goss-hawk). The word raptor itself sounds fleet and cutting.

Speaking of quantum mechanics...I was trying to find the quote Richard Feynman gave on this topic in his priceless Lectures on Physics. I couldn't find it on-line, however. I'd go back and fish it out of my tapes except 1) There are literally dozens of them and I'm not exactly sure which tape it was on and 2) GM stopped putting tape players in trucks in 2002 or 2003. (Farging iceholes!) I'd buy the lectures on CD, but they were expensive enough the first time... So this will have to do... "An atom resists forces around it. Even though mostly empty space, an atom wards off other atoms by repulsing the would-be trespasser with an electric force emanating from its electrons. It's a war of surface electrons. If another atom gets close enough (but doesn't combine to make a molecule), the first atom's surface electrons repel the second atom's and keep the second atom at bay. The only reason our feet don't fall through the floor is because the foot atoms push against the floor atoms in this way." (From USA Today, of all places... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/apr...om-energy_x.htm ) So even your chair, on a subatomic level, is sort of illusionary and primarily consists of empty space. Hardly an absolutely solid surface, eh?

Explain this. Michelangelo chiseled his hunk 'David' out of a hunk of marble using his teeth? Let me take a whack at it...the master's skills do not disappear without the use of tools. I think most of what we think of as mastery in this situation is mentally contained ability. This is achieved through practice (perseverance again), deep understanding and thought. (Phil may not totally agree, although his later comments suggest to me that he does, but I don't actually know.) I know he's a whiz with kiln-dried pine and Delta power tools, but is he conversant with wet, spongy, tropical tree trunks and a stone hand-adze? Probably more than me, that's for sure. But enough to call himself a Master in that situation? Me, I'd take Norm's boat over Phil's. (No offense, Phil. ) Norm knows wood. Again: Michelangelo as a beaver in the Petrified Forest. Mastery of a craft involves mastery of the tools: striving to do more with them, not striving to do without them. Yeah, but the tools are only elegant in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. The knowledge of how to wield it is far, far more important than the axe. Speaking of Michelangelo, he was once asked "How did you do it – make such a magnificent piece [as the statue of David]?" Michelangelo supposedly said, "I just removed everything that wasn’t David." Mastery is achieved through experience, knowledge and (a key secret of all masters) knowing the shortcuts that those two things impart. Plus it involves a sort of learned (and possibly innate) intuition. I was reading something or other recently that was talking about the fact that Bobby Fischer wasn't a great chess player because he thought 30 moves ahead. He was a great chess player because he almost intuitively recognized certain, typical patterns that were common board arrangements in a chess game. He learned this through experience and created shortcut responses. I also read that when he was young, Fischer was playing a game with some far more experienced chess players when he decided to sacrifice his queen. When he did it, everyone agreed that it was a foolish move. However, twelve moves later, the reason for doing so proved that he had made a very good strategic move. When asked how he had figured this out, Fischer said something like, "I didn't. I just felt it was the right thing to do." Sounds like a good thimblized philosophy to me.

"Finster shaving at his age? And tattooed? And smoking a cee-gar?" Oops! Forget the philosophical angles: "Carrots, wait for no one So I'll pick them now. Before they are eaten, By some slobby cow." "One of these days these scientists are going to invent something that can OUTSMART a rabbit." "I wonder if he's stubborn enough to open all those doors? (Explosion) Yep. He's stubborn enough." "You can't blow up the earth! All the people I know are there!" Daffy? "Shoot me again, I enjoy it! I love the smell of burnt feathers! And gunpowder! Look! I'm an elk! Go ahead and shoot me! It's elk season! I'm a fiddler crab! Why don't you shoot me? It's fiddler crab season!" "That's funny, suddenly I don't feel myself. Oh, I feel ok, it's just that...EEEK! You know better than that!" Or Yosemite Sam: "Surrender, rabbit! I gotcha outnumbered, one ta one!" "I paid my four bits ta see the high divin' act and I'ma gonna see the high divin' act." "You throw one more match down there and I ain'ta goin' to get it." Bugs and Wile E. (one of my personal favorite combos): "What kind of wine goes best with wild game? You are game, aren't you?" "Oh, uh, I'm game alright."

Say, what's absinthe like? I've always wondered.

Well, "every" is probably a bad word to have used. Although, even in an old friendship, there is a moment of discovery that I suggest will still lead to the good ol' initial phase. Otherwise, isn't it really just a different example of your two friends who are together in a sort of business-like arrangement of convenience? But I am splitting hairs... (I don't know that an honest business-like arrangement is all that bad, myself. Devoid of any passion, it's more like a tax dodge or something, but there is still something I can see in it... I suppose it depends on on what form you expect an exclusive relationship. (If you know what you expect. I suspect most people don't.) As for the rest of it...very candid. Thanks. I sort of suspected you chose to have a romantic streak in your view. Admittedly, I choose not to be much of a romantic for the most part. (I knew that would shock everyone.) "You are quoting Snoopy the Dog, I believe?" "I'll quote the truth wherever I find it, thank you." -Richard Bach Or perhaps I'll just quote whatever it amuses me...I probably haven't read that line in the magazine since 1981. Yet ask me to remember someone's name I just met... Kind of like the term "the crawling rot of the cranium." I spent hours leafing through my collection of ancient Cracked! magazines to find that panel so I could scan it in and play with it. All I could remember was the style of the drawing... (I do so love words, phrases and worldplay.)

You know, I just might come down there to meet some of you folk. Who could resist shaking hands with the likes of Patrick Hand, William Redwake and Mary Diamond? The weekends in KW are kind of loud and obnoxious anyhow as the north winds blow all the weekend warriors down the Keys... Consorting with a bunch of people I know, but really don't know at all might make the weekend more palatable and interesting. (I'll definitely be staying at a hotel, tho.' I'd had enough camping to last a lifespan by the time I finished with Scouts and high-adventure Explorers.) No firm plans yet, but routes and hotels are under consideration. (I'm not nearly as theoretical in real life as I am in print. Ok, I am, but it makes for poor conversation. )

Lust, passion, etc. are not love, but see - because of societal conditioning, you make that connection. LOL Well, there is an initial phase to any relationship that is all fascination and adoration. So it's not just a societal construct. (It has been built up to epic proportions, but I don't quite see how you can just dismiss it as mass hysteria.) In essence, I agree with you. But this brings forth the question in my mind...how can you have knowledge of love if you don't experience what I call the "Long-term" phase? Many romances break up because "the passion is gone" or some such, which is code for "the infatuation is over and now I must face that fact that this person snores and leaves bits of toothpaste in the sink, etc." A relationship can sometimes last years before it finally reaches this quandary. (The Seven Year Itch and other cliches come to mind.) Unless you don't see my long-term description as being love? (Of which I'm not certain. You seem to be lightly dismissing it as being idealistic despite my attempt to offer both sides of it in the above post.) If not, how do you perceive "romantic" love of another? What are the elements of it? Do you perceive it as even being possible? Are relationships nothing more than devices for reproduction? If so, is mating nothing more than an instinctive continuation of the race? (That's the only way I can presently see the dismissal of the L-T aspect of love. It would explain infatuation rather handily, although it might confound the Darwinian aspects of protection of the offspring, child-rearing and survival of what has to be one of the most helpless of new born creatures.) Actually, that's a typo, so you can use it free of charge. The comment should have been "Man cannot live on broad alone." (Which is paraphrased from "Har to Har," written by Lou Silverstone, Mad Magazine, July 1981, p. 43)

wot an oximoron! Notice the statement is Absolute..... Nothing is not absolute? What can be more absolute than nothing? (I'm being cheeky.) Let's us approach it scientifically. Name me an absolute. (We need a little devil emoticon.) But we agree! This is another way to say that you define your own world via your perceptions. However, if this is true, how can there be absolutes? Everyone's world is defined by the significance they assign to various aspects of it. Everyone's viewpoint is colored by their perspective.

Back and forth. Ok, truce on back and forth. We don't agree on everything, but I knew that. (I find your definition breakdown to be quite cynical. ) I think the notion of romantic love is about at least two things. Just as I think goals are about two things. And I think success in life is about two things. And most other things are about two things. The two things? The short- and long-term. In the short term love arena, you have lust and passion, infatuation and idealized romance. Basically, it's about short term sparks. Man cannot love on broad alone, however. If we were constantly in a state of infatuation, we'd accomplish little and wander about dazed and distracted. So infatuation has a stop-loss order: reality sets in. Our mate is human. Oh, fie! In the long term lover arena, you have acceptance and courtesy, learning and growing together. Basically, it's about perseverance, although not in a dry, dull way, but in an accepting, trusting way. Man can live well and learn a great deal by persevering. Your partner becomes your helpmeet, your companion, you co-conspirator. Romantic? Sure, I suppose so. There's the arguing and disagreements and whatnot, too. Muscles become stronger through resistance. The heart is essentially one big muscle. (Ok, I'm mixing metaphors.) Hey, I just saw Infinity recently - a splendid, romantic movie that explains a little about love in a way not quite like most other movies. Everyone should run off and watch it and maybe you'll understand love betterer.

So...let me see if I have this right: You're considering starting a page where you rant, complain and criticize without offering any solutions. Why would anyone read this when it's the way most other blogs function? (Consider offering thoughtful solutions. People might read it just for the novelty of your approach.)

Looks at it one way...looks at it another...looks from behind at it to see what it looks like writ backwards... I dunno. Looks pretty cynical from my perception of it. Nothing is absolute. As for telling someone you love them...perhaps it does take away from one source of your power, but, in a way that several people have sort of alluded to, it also expands another source of your power. It is possible to do without, though. In fact, my experience is that I'd much rather do without than be in a situation that is basically assembled for convenience or created to fulfill some perceived expectation or need (societal or personal). One will not find outside oneself what one does not have within oneself. OTOH, keeping it all within is akin to having a fire and keeping all the oxygen away from it. Love, as I understand it, grows by giving it away, not by keeping to yourself. (Although I believe I can understand how you might disagree with this.) As for the quote... "Life is either a daring adventure or it is nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure." -Helen Adams Keller As I read it, "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure." means "hiding from danger" or even "hiding from life." (Like everyone else, I interpret quotes I like in light of the understanding I have of them - it comes back to perception as I believe all things must. Intelligent people have tried vainly to pull quotes I like apart in the past based on some different understanding they have. I figure that that's good. They have a different experience that affects their perception - we all do. So I can chose to accept or reject their interpretation if they give me good reason.) To me, the last line is a comment on foolish things like the establishment of Homeland Security to "protect" us from danger. (What utter, fascist nonsense we will subscribe to in the illusive pursuit of nearly non-existent externally maintained "security.") Now, you could also interpret the last line of the quote to be "rushing foolishly headlong into perilous situations," but in light of the preceding line in the quote ("Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it."), I find that such an interpretation diverges rather widely from the on-going momentum of the ideas in the quote.

So I was shaking the cobwebs off my "beater" bike for the first time this year yesterday when some group of kids started cheering me on. "Hey, Lance Armstrong!" they cried. Now, except for the fact that I was wearing a cycling helmet and padded gloves, I doubt I looked anything at all like Lance. (I don't think, the iron man of cycling wears Carhartt's when he's cycling...) I was somehow buoyed by the notion that a group of pre-teen kids thought of Lance as someone in the sports world who rated recollection, however.

I received my first bit of plunder from Mr. Oderlesseye this weekend. Thank you, sir! A very creative mix of pirating materials. (And I even got a nice piece of personalized parchment in the bargain!) I also managed to procure everything I required for my own plunder, so I am sending out today to all who have pm'd me their addresses. I have acquired a strange new hobby without meaning to and all traders will be beneficiaries thereof.

What? Cynicism again? Phil, your complaint about love seems [to me] to be primarily about being used. Everybody uses each other, even those who try and shy away from it. What of it? Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes it's not. Either way, you get to chose which elements of every experience you want to focus upon and how you will define your created world in terms of them. You sort of allude to having been burned. So have I. So what? Life is risk. From risk comes success and failure, both of which provide reward and learning. (But you already know that.) Perhaps the comments of someone who has experienced something close to both total self-absorption and total giving in her lifetime might be appropriate. "Life is either a daring adventure or it is nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure." -Helen Adams Keller Life is an illusion. Step back and realize how important you are and aren't. (Here's something fun to give you some perspective on that: http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift ) So what are we to get from it? I say learning. What else can we achieve of any importance? Perhaps love and friendship are about learning in the same direction. As for unconditional love...it's a lovely ideal. However, like all ideals, I perceive that we poor mortals can only approach it, we cannot fully grasp it. Kind of like truth, actually. And now we're full circle. Funny how that happens.

Somewhere I have an article comparing Gore's Tennessee home (which is apparently pretty wastefully built and maintained) to George Bush's home (which uses all kinds of pro-environment energy devices like geothermal systems and wastewater recovery and whatnot). However, Gore is supposedly updating the house. (Well, if he wasn't before, he certainly will be now that the TVA report is out there.) The same article explains how much in environmental terms all the upgrades are going to cost. Don't forget that Gore is paying carbon offsets (A sort of voluntary tax to assuage your guilt paid to a middleman company which funds environmental groups - naturally, only after taking the middleman company's cut for "administrative costs." Not that I'm skeptical or anything...) Yet Gore is paying it to Generation Investment Management LLP, the chairman and co-found of which is, guess who?, Al Gore. Gore is running a political play for power. That's why I don't trust one thing the man says or does vis-a-vis the environment.

As for early conditioning...my best understanding at this point in my life is that each person's perceptive world is made almost entirely of actions, connections, associations and learnings (among other things) from their past. You can unlearn things you have learned, but this is (especially at first) a time-consuming process and would probably be very difficult to execute for all past events. But that's just my understanding at this point.

Could you explain to me how that could be completely accomplished? I can't see how it would be done, myself. You may attempt to absolve yourself from the requirements of a given society (although I think that even this would be impossible in a complete sense - it's more of a mental exercise than anything.) Even so, society would still consider you a part of it and thus you would be beholden to it and you actions would be so judged (ew, that word...). You might grab for the insanity clause, but then you really get to live under the dictates of society. So how could it be done? Live in a place completely ungoverened by any vestige of human society? Will you eschew all human amenities? Is there a way to get there without standing on the shoulders of your forebears and thus owning some responsibility to the society of humanity? (Even traveling to an unnamed asteriod or some such requires a rocketship and the tools to create food, water and O2.) Other than retreating into your mind (which, while in this existance, cannot be seperated from your body) I'm not sure how it could be done. (BTW, when I say "chosen to be a part," I believe that in some way, we choose to assume form before we become it. I wish I could explain it better than that, but - well, I can't. Sorry about that. It's one of the ookier metaphysical things in which I believe. It may just be a manifestation of my need for control of my life. (Yes, I understand that need for control is a weakness. I chose to live with it.))

If you don't already have one, get a tablesaw, Patrick. Buying one changed my whole perspective on my house project. (Now I can cut straight!)

I wouldn't put too much faith in Freud's ideas myself. The whole ego/id/superego thing is a bit too pat for my taste. But that may just be me (and my perception. )

Hm. Yes, I am confining my thinking too much. You know...I knew that. Killing (something) is just choice. I learned that a long time ago... Although I believe you must bear responsibility for your actions. Your operation upon society will impact the whole of which you have chosen to be a part. Every action and choice produces an outcome.

You couldn't be further from the, er, "truth". Look deeply into science sometime. Nothing is decided wholly and finally. Take the anthropological global warming we've been fussing over...there are seemingly valid studies on both sides of it. Which are actually true? Who knows? (No one except those who have already made up their minds and decided not to learn what they don't know.) That's why I think it's dangerous to sacrifice our freedom for one potential scenario - we know enough to make some dangerously limiting decisions. But that's a pretty contentious issue...take any scientific "truth." Did you know some scientists are still researching gravitation (gravity)? They can give you an equation that describes the majority of forces for what we call gravity, but there is still concern that other forces exist that we haven't accounted for. The first, most apparent equation for gravity was the Newtonian equation. If you learned the equation for gravity in school, that's most likely what you were taught. Then came Einstein's theory of general relativity which presented another wrinkle to the concept. Then quantum mechanics added yet another aspect to the equation. And I read there are still people looking at yet other factors (Take string theory...). Science is not truth. The scientific method offers us a way to approach what we call scientific truths. Used properly, it's a rigorous procedure that is supposed to eliminate bias (aka. "our individual human perception"). But then you come back to the notion that we all live in worlds of our own making and, if you really think about that, you may begin to realize that it is all but impossible to eliminate individual human perception. In science, scientists are always seeking to prove something in which they believe or want to believe and their results can be and probably are, influenced (often, I suspect, subconsciously) by this. This is where peer review is supposed to come in and save the day, but then we get into another realm that is often called groupthink or "collective individual human perception". This is probably less prevalent in the study of gravitation than it is in something like global warming, but...who knows? It could still be a factor even there. Scientific "facts" are very open to interpretation. In fact, the scientific theory is not built around proving something, but around not being able to disprove it. The minute you can disprove a scientific theory with a repeatable, verifiable experiment, that theory is considered to be wrong, or at least seriously compromised. So every "proven" scientific fact sits nervously waiting in the wings, hoping not to be disproved. (Forgive me my dramatic anthropomorphism.) It's a good method for approximating "truths," (it's the best one we know about) but it isn't truth. I personally suspect something will one day come along that will be even more powerful than the scientific method for estimating "truth" and there will a paradigm shift in this area. This is not to say the scientific method is bad or wrong, because it isn't, or even that it will be replaced, because it probably will not. However, it's just a tool in our toolbox for trying to get us a bit closer to external truth. (If, indeed, we can truly comprehend external truth.)

So what are your thoughts on truth? I don't think we can completely and accurately perceive truth. Truth exists outside of the world we create for ourselves. We can sort of sense it and can even paint it in broad strokes. ("Killing things is generally bad.") After that, however, we get into specifics and the whole thing sort of breaks down because of the influences of the mental landscape we have created. It actually reminds me of that quote from the book I cited several pages ago... "Even if a system can 'think about itself', it is still not outside itself. You, outside the system, perceive it differently from the way it perceives itself. So there is a meta-theory - a view from outside - even for a theory which can 'think about itself' inside itself." Truth is a factor that is outside of the system so we are always trapped by our own perceptions. At least that's my understanding at this point.