Alan Edmonds C100/9 - The quote from Kline: Interesting. But one hopes it is entirely coincidental that fluid intelligence is something vended from little pumps in public bars and crystallised intelligence is something proffered in little packets on certain street corners.
Roger Farnworth C100/12 - Consciousness: You say energy in the form of incoming photons interacts consciously with energy in the form of particles. You are almost there. One step more. Energy is elemental consciousness. There, you have it all. Simply extrapolate for the rest.
Frank Luger C100/20 - Mathematics: (i) The modernist mathematics you speak of indicates only that the mathematical dictionary has swelled beyond being able to fill analytical travel guides and prescriptive cookery books so it may now also start on describing tragedy and comedy. Soon, as futurist mathematics, it will press on to cover meaning and purpose, eventually to show right and wrong, and finally to disclose God. Mathematics supports nothing, it may point at everything. But only point. We are not a or b or c. To perceive we must always have a or b or c each in a thousand words as sights, sounds and what are to us are the many lesser sensations, from memories, as observations and for schemes. Classical mathematics tried all that, but, as with all primitive languages, it was insufficiently developed to describe and process the relevant variables. (ii) Any claim of a mathematics independent of this universe is false. That is so because all possible mathematics are collections of models and all models are in this universe. It is only that the universe allows models to not always represent what they model. (iii) Models can be things to be gazed upon or ignored, they can also be fitted into us and other systems so as to regulate or disrupt operation. So, models and model makers may be desirable or undesirable, and important or unimportant. The test is whether what is crafted is looked at or used at some time. We know some models already pass that test. With the others maybe there are two questions. Who regards models to be important. To whom are models important. The answers will of course spread and overlap, both considerably, but whether they might ever be identical I do not know. It would depend upon when in our development one takes the measure. C100/29 - Evolution: The really strange thing is that in one place some part of the universe may make only one change and force the rest of the universe around it to accept that change, whilst in another place the universe around that thing might cheerfully accept any change it wishes to make, and elsewhere that thing may accept only some particular change the rest of the universe would have it make, yet in another place it might happily accept whatever change the universe around it may desire it make. So there are at least four different kinds of part roles in the universe, specific and general forcing parts and specific and general accepting parts, and parts may change their roles in any place any time, letting the at least four different evolutionary processes also change in any place at any time. Thus, whilst working out how evolution has done its work in any given case can be difficult, working out how evolution will do its work in any given case can be impossible.
Theo Todman C100/25 - Violation: (i) Remember several issues ago I said the general dictionary does not say how a word should be used but how a word is used. So, a wolf is a wolf and a DNA molecule of a wolf is a pattern for a wolf because the public say so. We might say the public grant some tolerance on the meanings of "wolf" and "pattern for a wolf". (ii) If some wish a pattern for a wolf fiddled with they exercise their rights as sons and daughters of God. It is what they are here to do. If others do not wish the pattern fiddled with they exercise their rights as sons and daughters of God. It is what they are here to do. And anyone who manages to peacefully balance such conflicting wishes is an angel. They can do so only by calling upon the responsibilities of both sides. Rights and responsibilities imply to an end. The question is then not what is wanted to be done or not done, but whether and where the desired ends, and others brought in during discussion, converge on the standard scale that sweeps from Reset through Nothing to All. Where the needle comes to rest then implies what is to be done or not done. (iii) Consider also the extreme that the pattern for the wolf might not be content to be called part of the wolf. If flying an aircraft system one had built around oneself would one wish to be called part of that aircraft. Probably not. So, with violation we must examine two things, violation of the pattern for a wolf and violation of a wolf. We can say the pattern for a wolf violates other patterns around it so as to make a wolf and survive. Also, a wolf violates other animals around it so as to feed itself and survive. Hence if the end is for our pattern and ourselves to survive then it would seem we may violate the wolf and its pattern. Though, perhaps we should not speak of violation when what is done is permitted when it is necessary. Curiously, when we gather plants in the autumn we sing loudly of it with thanks and satisfaction at what we call a festival of the harvest. Then we proceed to destroy not only the plant but even its seed. In a lesser violation we do not actually worry about changing the genetics of a plant, we actually agonise over what effect the result will have on other plants and eventually on us. Our real concern is then that what we violate might spring back to harvest our good selves, and perhaps we have that from our pattern if it is concerned it too will be harvested. Surely it would be easier on the conscience for us to just smile as we take the harvest. It would better represent the intent of our morality, which is to guarantee our survival. The problem that some people see morality to do that one way whilst other people see it to do it another way is surely only technical. If morality ever really threatened our survival would we not all toss it out the window. (iv) You will see interference with living things all comes down to one question: Is it necessary towards securing one human life. If that is not clearly so it is only because there are so many of us that to some extent we consider at least those we do not know to be possibly a little expendable. (v) I do not know the above will resolve your query, but I imagine it might at least cast light upon why you have it. (vi) There is no solution to your query that can make everyone happy but, whatever the answer, greatly begrudged acceptance from those disappointed would be adequate.
Albert Dean