There isn't really a muse thread.

I don’t know.

The more I have been exposed to the discoveries of modern genetics the more everything seems to make sense. It really appears to be sound in it’s conjecture.

The lines of genetics really blur any race issues into nonsense. Cross breeding and in-breeding ran amok. We are the result of many differing cousins getting together and sharing our diversification. Isolation and regrouping, as a plan, seems almost a requirement for >this< result to have taken place. Can it have taken place coincidentally? It’s “coincidence” not so much the product of a “personal anthropomorphic god” but of a creative force of the universe; being what it can be.

Morality or ethics has been a question for me as long as I have feigned any pursuit of philosophy. Maybe I “have” smoked too much pot. Opps too late. Or, maybe not. While one does give up one thing for another there will always and forever be the debate of the value in the exchange. Did “god” really design a world where you can have your cake and eat it too? I have found it rather to be an extremely fair metering of reward and consequence, given the variability in what is reward and consequence, and what one is capable of giving up for the other. (I’ve a really hard time thinking anything related could be a boring subject of extrapolation, Trixie)

I think those that believe that life is anything but fair are myopic and short sighted. What goes around does come around given a broad enough scope. My genes have lived 450k years, and I’m an infant; and I’ll be “dead” too, soon enough.

I am an optimist.

The “glass” is always full.

The question is whether the “glass” is full of what you need.

Example: You have a glass half full of water. A common presumption is the other half contains nothing useful. “Is the “glass” half empty or half full”? One or the other is the answer for some. I tend to the thinking that the glass is always full. More specifically, whether I have need of what it is full of.

If it is half full of water; I need that, and if the other half is filled with air; I need that too. “cake and eat it too?”

Now, if the other half happens to be filled with coal tailing, likely, in the long run, not so good; and as it seems we have a certain difficulty keeping one separate from the other, it’s really not so “good” even for an optimist. Go figure!

No mention of Cecil. The wife got pretty upset by the story.

If I could ask one person anything, I’d ask that dentist, for what reason? The clusterfuck of legality aside, why? Who measures them self by that yardstick? And it’s really got to suck having so totally screwed it up. He can’t post a picture of himself with his trusty bow and the dead carcass and claim any bragging rights. It wouldn’t surprise me if the guide and the farmer dragged a bleeding goat out into the preserve and back onto the farm just in front of the dentist, for just another 5,000 dollars. I mean if you’re going to pay $50,000 for the “permit” what’s $5,000 for insurance. I don’t think the sellers of the permit were counting on him taking out insurance.

And it’s not like he doesn’t have a prior record for poaching. The man lied to the DNR regarding where he killed a black bear, he killed it out of zone and dragged it into zone and then lied to the DNR where the kill took place, in an effort to make it appear the kill was legal. Sound familiar?

I’m guessing it’s either a pathology or genetic disposition or both. And wonder if his family might not consider a suicide watch.

It sucks for me to be lumped into that ‘human’ cloud.

If god were to come and judge me based on that clowns performance as example of what human is capable.

Maybe that is yet another reason for our quest of a personal god. We believe that the collective environment we create is not our personal responsibility. ‘We’ make this.

I hope he is not too old a dog to learn a new trick.

New Muse,

I am thinking, in the larger picture that nature trumps nurture.

I see a high degree of corroboration between differing modes of exploration. The fields of anthropology and genetics support each other. When we find genetic material there is an ability to separate it and sequence it specifically at an individual level of occurrence. We can trace a parent child sequence back thousands of generations to determine where a specific genetic trait has come from.

Evolution?

What are its characteristics? How does it operate? Can sound predictions be made based on its evidence? Over time what are its tendencies? Can a vector, if it has one, be projected? Is there evidence of direction?

This is life as life has been defined. We do not find genetic material that is not associated with life. Evolution does not seem to play by the same moral rules we have invented. I don’t think evolution conceives of good nor of evil, so where would a question of common good factor in? Who among us it actually capable of assessing what is a common good?

How many times must we accept an individual assessment as fact? I’m not asking you to do that like so many others do. The questions aren’t rhetorical.

One characteristic of evolution is it appears to progress from simple states to more complex states. That would appear to be a vector of sorts.

growing pains or what? that end of rope just looks too near.

Looks can be deceiving.See I am improving, …somewhat.

I never owned a boat, had some strange experiences with animals, birds and insects, though which to my mind do imply some strange goings on. Here, I skimmed over the whole OP, and in my mode of thinking trying to come up with something supporting the fragments. (My own)

The , looking back is very short indeed, and looking ahead is longer yet. And it seems as if, looking ahead becomes longer and longer, while the backward glance shorter still. A calculus of sorts whose function is protective, of the rationality of man. It is a function, and it derives of some early genetic markers as well, maybe, in a secondary way.
In this sense, civilization is the the structural
Manifestation of this process. So it’s more than just an anthropological relatedness.

 Evolution bears this resemblance out, and it almost looks like a call for a substratum, if not for a foundation.  That these resemblances were constructed out of likenesses, and inclusions, and later much later, on exclusion, has other established signifiers in terms of economic, political and social signifiers.

 Pre  natal and child mortality, does not consume anything out of the evolutionary continuum, since there are no signifiers present to mark transition in time.  I believe, that because of this fact, some events never really happen, the are only easily replaceable manifestation of genetic similarities.  

The reversal was an unfortunate case of disobeyance,
To higher laws and appearances of reality.

I would like to add about foreword and backward looks, and when the critical time comes is when yesterday seems to become only momentary, whereas the future elongates toward the infinite, kind of like how temporal/spatial mass changes it’s shape,
And those two ends are changing their fabric as approaching a black hole. This analogy works for me. There are some indicators supporting this view.

Reoccurring thought.

Watching television is for me an exercise in recognizing commercial manipulation.

Recent ad; think it was for a wireless phone company but it could be for a dish TV provider just as easy .

The scene opens with the actor playing the part of a customer calling a sales representative of the company asking about a company’s offer that “sounds too good to be true”.

The camera cuts to the sales person on the other end of the call and she verifies that yes in fact that is what they will charge for the product they offer. (I personally think they are asking way too much for what they are offering and wouldn’t have considered it an offer that was “too good to be true” in the first place and that would be editorial)

The camera cuts back to the actor playing the part of the customer and he asks “…but how can you do that?”

The camera cuts back to the actor playing the sales part and she gets up and starts singing and dancing but what she is singing about has nothing to do with the question.

The camera pans out and pretty soon everyone at the company is singing and dancing about nothing to do with how they can offer their service for a charge that is “too good to be true.”

The scene cuts back to the actor playing the part of the customer and he’s dancing right along.

I don’t remember the company, or the price, or any details of the service offered, I don’t even remember how the commercial ends.

Clearly people buy into that sort of advertising.

In another thread I was challenged to debunk a video.

I did get the coil to spin but it wasn’t on it’s own.

Here’s what I did.

I took 2 1/16" balsa wood boards that were 3 x 8 inches and one 3/16 in 3 x 8 balsa board. I drilled a 1 inch hole right in the center of the 3/16 in thick board and a hole just large enough for a piece of wire to pass through in the center of one half. I cut two 2 x 3 inch pieces of copper foil and glued one to each half of the board on either side of the battery hole. I connected one piece of the foil with a bare wire to the negative terminal of the watch battery ran it along the bottom through the small hole and connected it to one of the pieces of foil. Then I glued one of the 1/16 in thick boards to the bottom. I used a second piece of bare wire to connect the positive terminal of the battery across the top of the board and to the other piece of foil. I then glued the other 1/16 in balsa boards to the top making a sandwich out of the materials. One of the hidden pieces of foil is connected to the positive terminal of the battery and has a positive electric potential. The other piece of foil is connected to the negative terminal of the battery and has a negative potential. The resulting sandwiched board looks like an ordinary 1/4 inch thick piece of balsa wood. The grain of balsa does a fine job hiding the laminated result.

I pushed one bent T pin into the wood block on one side and into one piece of foil and another bent T pin into the balsa plank and into the other piece of foil. One pin has a positive electric potential and the other pin has a negative potential.

As it’s just a simple electric motor, ya gotta make up some unique quality about your device that makes it work. In this case a faked “effective” monopole magnet.

The coil is wound out of 30 gauge insulated wire. One tail of the coil is stripped clean of its insulation but the other tail is only stripped half way around to create a simple commutator. When the coil is placed into the cradle made by the two pins it closes the circuit between the positive potential pin and the negative potential pin and a current forms between the two potentials. The current induces a magnetic field in the coil which begins to rotate. It will run as long as the coil stays in the saddle which is closing the circuit and allowing the current to flow between the positive and negative potentials. When you remove the coil you open the circuit and there is no drain on the hidden battery. The motor is actually being powered by a 2032 watch battery hidden in the base.

What I’ve made is a conventional electric motor but hidden the battery and the connections to it.

Looks quite convincing if I do say so my self. An “ordinary” piece of wood, two pins, a magnet and a coil. (and a hidden battery and a bridge for a closed circuit.)

But don’t tell anyone it’s a hoax; because it’s believed by some to be evidence of free energy.

Herm?

That was from a post a while ago. But why, you ask. Opposition was clearly not working. Regardless of how reasonable I thought I was being, I was getting no where. Too continue doing the same thing became unreasonable. I’ve not been here before so I’m sort of playing around getting my feet wet. I am sorry I don’t have a more complete explanation then that. New vector; lets see where it leads. I am an experimental sort.

I’ve read some of your other posts. Flummoxed? I suffer from that too. But always play your strong suit. That’s what a partner does.You are attempting to revel as much as you can about an unknown hand.

I don’t play a lot of cards but it is a particular card game metaphor.

If you hold it in the palm of your hand and someone has convinced you have lost it, who’s fault is that?

Thanks James, I’ve learned a lot. Experimentation provides proof of theory. I do sort of worship science because it worships that which is repeatable. If you’ve found out some property that is uniform in it’s behavior (a proposed “law”) then you can document that uniformity and it’s replication should reproduce the result uniformly. It’s behavior should be predictable (useful) given science.

If any claim is proposed where the information to reproduce the result is not also readily available I do not think it promotes science. What it promotes is myth or fantasy or illusion. Reproduce just one of the devices as it has been presented as evidence of what you have claimed. Make the coil spin.

Given the evidence provided you’re a blow hard.

Oh, so you weren’t intending to prove anything with your claim followed by an enumeration; you were presenting evidence?

Evidence.
noun

  1. That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
  2. Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
    His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
  3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

You are so full of bullshit you’re not likely even aware of how full of bullshit your are, or potentially even worse, you are.

They said planks constant was the smallest unit of measurement, yet they found particles that are smaller than that, so is science really science anymore?

Sure is. Why wouldn’t it be?

Best guess as informed and repeatable as possible. Historically best guesses get better and guesses that do no conform get discarded.

Seems we humans are not so good at keeping a best guess distinct from infallible knowing.

Science, good science; doesn’t lay claim to knowing, but it is fairly good at rooting out what doesn’t work. James demands rather cavalierly, that science answer “why”? That’s not what science distinguishes. How, and what, and where and when are more the domain of science. I would hope a scientist answers the “why” question with I don’t know. That would be an honest answer.

But they can balance the frequency driving four propellers to keep a drone in the air with no one flying it because they can calculate how electrons behave and can calculate the forces they can create. Conductors and insulators have a science behind them, which is fairly well understood, that I wouldn’t call knowing. Rather, it’s more like really super informed guessing. The better the information the better the guess.

By the way they disprooved Einstein’s General Relativity wrong the other day, by measuring the gravity field of small particles. The field was several hundred times larger than Einstein’s equations predicted. Also, they proved that gravity fields only occur when an object is moving, which implies my theory about aether is real. So Einstein is wrong and my theories are right, when will I get the credit i deserve?

The other day?

General? Special? Super String? Spangly Dangly? At this >scale< it still works. Wouldn’t surprise me if, like the really super tiny behaves differently, so too would the really super gigantic, and we sort of live in between.

I have a hard time groking the notion of Entanglement and that quarks exist in two states until you measure them and it is the result of measurement that determines which state you end up with. That’s some strange shit. However, I still wake up every morning to the same alarm, and when I put my foot down the floor is solid. I put bread in a toaster and toast comes out. Electrons whirl and my car starts. And this works repeatably and when it doesn’t there is a fairly short troubleshooting list of possible culprits. We are aware of what is required for it to work and when it doesn’t we look at the requirements, are they being met?

It doesn’t work at that scale but it works fairly predictably on this scale. So do you throw the babe out with the bath water?

Looks like Trixie is having fun with some string.

Somehow there is a disconnect between a guy who thinks the coil will spin and “his” theory.