tar

scherado, The treatment had the same logical flaw that I am trying to point out in recent posts. You can't at the same time say that only a few people are capable of intellectual conscience, and that it is a flaw, to be devoid of that desire to be certain based on agreement with yourself...while you are suggesting that the world would be a better place, if everyone thought like you. You are dismissing the 90 percent of humanity that are not within the 10 percent. No, worse than that, you are saying only one in a hundred are capable of philosophizing in the proper fashion that everyone "should". It is logically inconsistent to look to others for agreement on how one should be, at the same time that you are discounting their ability to be that way. An intellectual conscience is useless if it serves only you. Regards, TAR There is a general side rule I go by, to determine whether a thought of mine is true and valid and consistent with the world, or whether it is primarily fancy on my part, and occurring primarily in my own head. That is, how many things about the world would have to change, in order for you to be right. If the number of things is huge, then your idea is not reflective of the world, but true only within your own mind, which is not subject to the rules of objective reality. It is strange to say that democracy can only be saved if you are king.

scherado, Simple, but a little complicated in terms of what was given to you, to think about. I am not sure, in the realm of ideas, that one can think, without language and the meanings and definitions of words, what they stand for, the ideas they represent are given to you, by common usage and the dictionary and the explanations of others. Point of fact is that I was very happy to take CharonY's ideas and run with them, until you said "Nope". Then the critical thinking, about what Nietzsche meant by intellectual conscience and what intellectual conscience must mean to TAR, begins anew. I am somewhat guided by the additional fact that you read works of Nietzsche framed in a work about gay people's morality, that one can come up with a rational to be gay, even if the historical rules about that say "nope". This was an idea I had when first reading the thread, and I conjoined the idea with the way atheists on this board, including myself, take a certain stronger listening to one's own rational, than to the edicts of others. But this is an interesting conundrum that we establish for ourselves, standing firm on our own constructed "intellectual morality, intellectual conscience, intellectual ethics", because we are human, and we look to others for verification and acceptance. We have, in my critical thinking about the situation, only three basic possible judges to look toward, to attempt to please, to establish our conscience with. God, other people, or our self. And breaking this down, critically, we have basically objective reality that we wish to please, that we wish to be right, in relation to. God is, in my mind a figurative image of objective reality in total, so we build our conscience to satisfy this general judge. Whether we are humanists or believers in Gaia or Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, Zeus, Allah, God, or Jesus we seek to please objective reality. And when we seek to please ourselves we are attempting to please that one piece of objective reality that remains always associated with one particular body/brain/heart group objectively known as a human with our name. And this human is completely constructed of objective reality stuff, and even the internalized images and ideas are analog representations of stuff "given" to the self by objective reality. Analogs of, symbols for, stuff of objective reality. So both God and our rationality are about objective reality. So, wanting to please other people, is what our conscience is most likely about. We want to be good, we want to be right, we want to be victorious in the eyes of our family and friends, countrymen and allies. This is my critical breakdown, of where our conscience comes from, and why. We want the dopamine to flow in us, and we want to make others happy with us. Kant came to his rational ethics by asking himself, before he did a thing, whether he would want everybody to do this thing. If the answer was yes, than do it. If the answer was no, then don't do it. Jesus says to do onto others what you would have them do unto you. So both ideas, and mine are grounded in the soil of pleasing an unseen other, a judge, made of human stuff, that is going to be happy if you behave well, and unhappy if you behave badly. To construct an intellectual conscience that laughs in the face of other people's feelings, is contrary the idea of what ethics is, in the first place...in my critical breakdown. Regards, TAR

Scherado, There is indeed a moral dilemma happening in the American "conscience". It is important to me for people to understand that their own pronouncement of another person's lack of correctness in moral stance is a rejection of the need to morally please that other person. That is, in the case of Charlottesville, the country yelled at Trump for stating that there were good people on both sides of the protest. This was unfortunate in my mind because the definitions put anybody that wants to see statues stand, as evil racists, and discounts that fine, upstanding citizens in the South, have grandparents and greatgrandparents that served in battle under the command of the generals sitting on the horses and the statues are part of their collective moral world. That the white, Nazi groups usurped the protest to advance their own agenda, does not mean I, as a Yankee can not see fine moral standing in the hearts and minds of the people of the town that want to see the statues stand. That is, ethics and morals are, in my mind synonymous with conscience. To have an intellectual conscience, given to you by a political party, is NOT being critical, or using critical thinking. It is merely an unworkable decision to demonize everyone and all about everyone that goes by a slightly different set of rules, or has a different take on religion, or race, or sex or taxes or government transfer payments than you do. Important to me, politically is that we have the same 320 million people after the election as we did before. Nobody got suddenly evil or good. The good people are still here. The bad people are still here, and it is crucial to our society to continue to allow each other to have different rules we each go by, and different gods we each worship, as long as we look to please each other in the most important consideration of pledging our honor and our wealth to the union. We are NOT as deplorable as Hillary would have you think. We are not as misguided as Fox news would have you think. But I believe, human nature has a person trying to please as many people as possible. That is, our conscience is derived, as Area54 says, from a whole collection of history and literature and we aim to please Socrates and Moses and Jesus and Einstein and Dawkins and Mandela and Hilary and Marx and the Koch brothers...depending on who we are. There is not, in my estimation, a way to come up with a set of rules, based on critical thinking, that does not also allow that you have chosen sides in some historical philosophical or ethical battle. Regards, TAR

Area54, You are suggesting that people are animals and most of "them" never get over it, and you are saying that the OP should perhaps try and get over being an animal and derive his ethics like you and Nietzsche. You did not say us, you said them, like you were somehow on another plane of existence. This thought, that you can derive your own morality, is not correct. I take exception to you thinking it is possible and Nietzsche thinking it is possible, and iNow thinking it is possible. Anti-religious arguments on this board always suggest that the way to certainty is through the scientific method and the abandonment of belief and faith. This might be useful, pertinent advise when taking a scientific measurement, or curing a disease, but its efficacy is somewhat in question in the realm of morality. In the realm of morality, we talk to unseen others about the situation. We tend to want to please others we consider on our side, on our team, and demonize those losers who are not like us. We like to have other people's OK about things. We need to know we are doing it right. It is a human need. An emotion. A matter of evolution and brain chemistry. We CANNOT rise above this need. Atheists have a hard time explaining who it is they are trying to please. It is not a literal God. It is a figurative god. Humanity. Science. Truth. But I think, it is objective reality, that people are trying to please. Where a conscience comes from. One knows the right thing to do, even if no one is watching, because we know what others expect of us. The "right" thing to do, comes from a derivation of all judgements we have watched others make throughout our life. We need the verification that we are doing it right, that we are good and not bad. So Area54, please expound upon the morality that you have derived from the recesses of your own rational mind, that has nothing to do with animal desires and religion and law and what other people believe is right. You won't. Not because I am on ignore, but because you cannot. I think the "intellectual conscience" is a flight of fancy occurring in one's own mind, that is as baseless and ungrounded as Mohammed listening to the Angel Gabriel in a dark cave. You cannot find "certainty" within. Well you can think you have it, but you are only pleasing yourself and not checking with objective reality for verification. TAR

Area54, It was me. I thought you might glean that from my post. I think you are wrong to take the stance that you are not an animal, and the rest of us are. TAR

Area54, I would have to put you in the third, critical camp . Have you derived your own ethics? Care to expound? I am not thinking someone that thinks they are not an animal has understood a darn thing about life. According to my muses, one has to side with their team to exist in this world. A lone passer is absolutely alone. To that, the antiquarian is important to listen to, because it is the wisdom of the ages that is passed to his or her understanding. The monumental is kin to me, because it glorifies the unique nature of each of us doing it right, for the first time. Everybody, when they look into the eyes of their newborn daughter, knows they did something important and unique. The critical is just that. A high horse opinion, that pretends one is above the fray. I am of the opinion that we need our history, to guide our decisions, and the judgement of others, in total is more important to our happiness and success, than listening to someone who has arrived at their ethics by themselves. TAR scherado, I think the intellectual conscience is somewhat overrated. To come up with an ethics, by yourself, is contrary human nature and the desire to please an unseen other. If the only individual you wish to please, is yourself, then, you are alone. And a person can not achieve much by themselves. Look at Socrates. He was sure he was right, and everyone else wrong, and everybody else made him consume poison and die. I have always marched to the beat of a different drummer, I have always been in the top 10 percent of strength, looks, intelligence, education, and circulated with the elite in every situation I have run across, but it is foolhardy to think one can achieve success without the other 90 percent also achieving success. The rules of life should not be imposed upon the masses by the elite. The elite should use their advantage to the benefit of all, not to take advantage of the situation. My code requires that I work toward the success of the teams I am on, on not calculate my advantage. I am thinking Nietzsche and Area54 should have let the rest of the place judge them, rather than discard the judgement of the masses in favor of their own intellectual conscience. Regards, TAR

Mikeco, I don't know where or when pride went from being a deadly sin, to being "alright" to have. But "proud parent" is now, in my mind a good thing to be, not an over indulgent type of behavior or one that signifies improper non humble behavior. It is one of the deadly sins. Wrath, greed, Sloth, pride, lust envy, and gluttony were certainly things my upbringing warned against, in favor of the four cardinal virtues Prudence, Justice Temperance, and Courage, combined with the three Theological virtues of faith, hope and charity (love). The ideas are deep in our literature, and constitution, and I was brought up with the Protestant work ethic and taught to be humble and caring and such. So religion I think is still deep in our character, whether we are believers or not. But the rules have been somewhat rewritten over time, and some of religion I think was meant to help us get along with each other, and selfishness was and probably still is, an antisocial type of character flaw. Pride I suppose can go the way you say and be an attempt to command respect, but this is not a flaw for a marine or a football player. Testosterone plays a big role in how I, as a male behave, and interact with the world. Other males might "feel" me, more than females who don't in general have testosterone to live with. Certain "rules" of behavior, might be useful to bring teammates down a notch, and allow the leader to command. As a worker bee, it is good to be humble, and carry the food back for the hive and not consume it. I am thinking the seven deadly sins were suggested so people would reel themselves in a bit, to put the hive before the self. But as we are saying, some of these rules of behavior are a little outdated, like temperance was a bit more on the tip of the tongue around the time of prohibition, and being a wall flower was once virtuous, where asserting yourself, especially if you are a female, is currently considered a virtue. But behind it all, is our need to please others, to do it right, to win, to be victorious...as a team, so who is on your team, and what rules you are going by, and who you want to please, is crucial in understanding individual behavior. To this, I long ago came up with that definition of love, to define who or what you are aligned with. I thought it central to affection and positive feelings toward something, that you internalize, that entity, and consider it as important and central to your doings, as your self is. When you love someone, or something, the concern and care and attention is automatic, like scratching an itch or rubbing a sore muscle. You have that thing or person within your bubble of protection. The other entity is an extension of you. There is not a dividing line where you stop and the other entity starts. So that is the love, I am attempting to define, and find the opposite, of, and that would be something like considering there be a line between you and the other entity. A separation, a distinction, something that makes the other entity wrong, and a loser, and an outcast from your love. Shunned and discarded. Regards, TAR

Mikeco, You and everybody else here knows why I was filled with pride. I operate, in my thinking and musing under the assumption that everybody, that is human, has a similar setup to me, in terms of our body/brain/heart/group. Some are bigger or smaller, stronger or weaker, faster or slower, more allergic or more immune, smarter or dumber, better remembers or worse, more "loving" or less, but the basic template of a human is very similar across the species in terms of how our brain is arranged, how the arm bone is connected to the wrist bone. how we each have an eye on either side of our nose, and so forth. Male and female, stoned or sober, angry or content, there are different hormones and pheromones, needs and desires, emotions and so forth that go on, but it is all dishes cooked under different recipes but in the same kitchen with the same set of ingredients. And there are definitely personality differences that cause some to be introverted and others extroverted, leaders or followers, sloppy or neat, brave or cowardly, sharing or miserly...but personality tests are not scored on a zero to 100 basis, and there is no pass or fail, good or bad, when it comes to love. So for a definition of love, to make sense to me, it has to take all of the above, into account. Some of what we do, like eating for instance is done both because we need the energy, and because we are hungry, or perhaps because we just lost our significant other, and need some pleasure to make us feel right. My definition "love is when you include another in your feeling of self" takes all iof the above into account, and makes no judgements. The need to command respect, that you align with pride, and find dangerous or unsavory or bad, is, in my worldview the need to be validated by others. This is not a bad thing, but the glue that holds society together. When we please others, we feel good, the dopamine flows. I think it is more that we like to be right, that causes road rage, then any evil characterization. To me it is simple to parse a human need, emotion or action in terms of looking at our motivation/pleasure/reward system and imagining the norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine flowing the same in me as it does in you. So the need to command respect, is, to me, the need to be thought of in a good light, by an unseen other or group of unseen others, who you would like to please. And I have, for the last 10 years, been looking for a way to make a contribution to humanity, figuring I was well over 50 and if I was going to make a contribution, I better start working on it. Perhaps my daughter was my contribution. It makes me proud to see her doing real stuff that gives others nanomaterials for biomedical applications. Regards, TAR

mikeco, but you can't start saying pride is the opposite of love, to arrive at the definition of love being the opposite of pride When my daughter's second author paper was published in a world wide chemistry periodical, with a picture of her research on the front cover, I was so proud, I cried. None of your logic works for me, to frame pride as the opposite of love. Regards, TAR

Mikeco, I was thinking that love or affection was the thing that was across all four usages of the word. God's love, sexual love, brotherly love, and love of your children or country or football team. The Greek usages of the different strengths and recipients of "love" never really defined the word, but the word "love" was in all four usages. Like if the Alaskan natives have a word for snow that is drifting, or a word for snow that is falling, they are still talking about crystalized water that originates in the sky. So what definition of love should we use to answer the OP? Does "love is when you include another entity in your feeling of self" work for you, or are you stuck on the pride thing? Can we keep a literal God that talked to you out of this for now? If you want me to take your thought as an insight or a suggestion or an idea, I will, but I do not think Moses was talked to by a literal God, I do not think Jesus is the literal son of God, and I don't think Mohammed was talked to by the Angel Gabriel in a cave, so the chances of me, thinking you, have received a direct pronouncement from God are pretty slim. Can you back up the pride thing with obvious things that everybody does, and everybody knows about, and everybody has access to? Regards, TAR

DrP, I agree with your thinking. That is why I forwarded a definition of love early on so we could negate it, or oppose it, and come up with an answer to the thread question. What is the opposite? If my definition is workable then one can understand each type of love in terms of how strongly one loves something, what that something is, whether the motivation is rational or emotional, whether the love is reciprocated or misplaced, or good or bad for the particular individuals or groups involved. I often in various threads, talk about the idea of teams, and people through and throughh, identify with various groups to inform their decisions and their feelings. It matters greatly to people whether the entities they identify with are right, successful, and happy (or safe from harm). And familial love is somewhat automatic or instinctual or controlled by physical bonding due to presence and utility. These people in your family are the closest other entities, to being you, that exist. That is, when it comes to who or what you consider part of your feeling of self, your parents and children and spouse, along with your home and your favorite chair, are entities that EVERYBODY includes in their feeling of self. Regards, TAR Tub, No, I don't think selfishness is the root of all evil. I think the opposite, it is the basis of consciousness to be aware of your self, to protect it, and see that it survives, even past your death, in the form of children or your works, or the memory of you in others. Evil I think comes when good men do nothing. And there is also a problem of people trying to get the world to match their internal model of it, rather than trying to get their model of the world to match the world. People tend to frame the exact same thing as good when it is voiced in the first person, neutral when framed in the second person and bad when framed in the third person. Once you identify some entity as evil you put it in the third person, as far from the self as possible. Then everything that person does is bad. So, I would say the opposite of what you are implying. I would say the world would be a better place, if everybody considered everybody else as part of their feeling of self, and everybody used first person pronouns to talk about others. We would do better if we did not demonize each other. Regards, TAR

Except you are claiming hate, arrogance, anger etc. are attributes of selfishness and therefore claiming selfishness is a negative emotion. I do not think that is correct. Perhaps we are taught certain humility and subservience to the king, is useful to society, but the jury is still out on this, as socialist countries and capitalist countries both work. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and it takes a rich person to give to the poor, and you put on your own oxygen mask before you help your loved ones get their's on, etc. Selfishness is not automatically a bad thing. In fact, in my worldview it is the central motivating factor for all life. Only religion, and idealistic notions like being a humanist, claim that selfishness is evil. So I did not "get" the parable before of the devil and the sly guy or whatever it was. It seems contrived to make it good to trick the devil or something...I did not follow the allegories, as they seemed to be teaching a religious message, not directly addressing love or the lack of it, or dealing with the human condition, emotions and motivations, that I have been musing about and investigating. Regards, TAR

DrP, I perhaps did not fully state what I meant by "being the same thing". Let's take concern for wellbeing rather than including in one's feeling of self, then. In either case, one's attention and focus is on the other entity, as if it matters how that other entity fares. Whether this concern is driven by hormones or pheromones or rational, or whether it is directed toward a football team, a country or a philosophy, or a planet, the concern is present. The concern is the love. Regards, TAR

DrP, Granted the emotions are different when considering your garden or your lover or ideas or your brother. Different things, certainly. Each of the Greek words have different definitions because they refer to different levels of emotion, and different recipients, but they all are about love. So what, is consistently present, across all definitions? Regards, TAR

Thread, The four Greek types of love, all refer to the same "thing" they just differ in who or what is the recipient or focus of the thing. Whether it is had by God toward his children, or a parent toward her children or a significant other toward a significant other, or a friend toward a friend, or a brother toward a brother, or even outside the four Greek types, when it is had by a person toward themselves, it is, in my estimation the same thing. Earlier in the thread I suggested that "love is when you include another entity in your feeling of self". I am still thinking this is a good starting place from which to define all types of love, in all it various usages. However, some of the recent posts decry pride and self loving, and this does not follow from my definition. I don't think my definition is wrong. I think it is wrong to equate humility to self denial because it defeats my thesis. It is important, if my definition is to work, to consider the self the main driver of the situation. That is, you love your garden, because you consider it part of you. The bugs eating it, is a direct assault on you and what you are including in your feeling of self. Following this idea, the opposite of including something in your feeling of self, would be not including something in your feeling of self, which could be indifference or simply ignorance. Or it could be actively excluding something from your feeling of self, which could be hate, or enmity, or disgust, or shunning, or repulsion. Regards, TAR

seems the answer to the OP question of how long it would take is "a stupid large number of years And being that we don't have a stupidly large number of years to play with, it seems the literal answer is "they won't" Infinity is a device, not a number, so it can not be considered in the calculation. Neither can infinite universes or the consideration of an infinite amount of attempts or an infinite amount of monkeys. I think as soon as you put infinity in the equation your answer is by definition undefined. Like dividing by zero. Infinity is not a number, and can not take part in the literal calculation.

Thread, Here is another thing humans do, strategize, that utilizes the rTPJ. Probably the development of this area of a mammals brain, into a region that could construct somehow, a theory of mind, is central to the evolution of our consciousness. http://newsonthego.net/i-know-your-next-move-game-reveals-how-the-brain-strategizes/ Regards, TAR

what is with the ad hominem arguments misrepresentations and insults anybody interested in talking about consciousness and evolution? Sorry Gees, for attracting the ire of these two guys. I don't know why they need to treat me like a child, but I do not want to bring their insults down on you, by association with me. I am out. Thanks for the good discussion.

So in what way am I being arrogant and ignorant, to claim the same consciousness we all claim. run out of arguments? not nice to get a neg rep for calling for a poster to stand and back up his argument There is an obvious difference of opinion here, concerning the fitness of human consciousness. Both Gees and I think the Dennett is not thinking this consciousness situation through. iNow is in Dennet's corner and dimreepr thinks pattern matching is akin to confirmation bias, in its being somehow less than stellar behavior. The simple logic Gees and I are both using to arrive at our stance is that we are all humans, using human consciousness to have an understanding of human consciousness. It MUST be working. It must fit the place, or it would not have been selected for.

you are saying I am arrogant to suggest I am not playing second fiddle to anyone or anything that implies I am down a rung from where I should be you are saying I am ignorant to suggest humans are at the top of the life on Earth heap, in terms of consciousness, as if you can point to a "better" plan my question back to you, would be better for whom the answer better not be better for the other life form because that would not do us a bit of good

not at all correct I am saying that ALL we care about is within human consciousness. There is no reason to think we are doing it wrong. We are doing it right. We might evolve further. We might run into a hidden race, We might discover or be discovered by another race. We might find ways to augment our consciousness as we already have and build in better senses and better memory. But the one thing I have that you have on a fairly equal footing as I have it, is a human consciousness. Everything wonderful about the place is noticed through a human consciousness, everything bad about the place is noticed through a human consciousness. Anything worth noticing and doing anything about is noticed by a human, and done for a human. Our self is the primary point of focus we are aware of, and our self is the primary item we strive to maintain. It is like Einstein's observers that he places all over the universe, in different frames of reference traveling at different velocities relative to each other. They are all human observers. And they are all imaginary. The fact that Einstein put them out there does not make them actually be out there. And the best and only reference point that we actually have, is the Earth. We are rather well insulated from the beginning of the universe and rather well insulated from the end, by tremendous amounts of space and time. If we were not separate from the place in the point of focus fashion that we are, then we would be something else. God, or the force, or Mother Nature, or Allah or something. But we are not. We are point of focus lifeforms on the Planet Earth, and everything we do, everything we think, everything we care about is done in relationship to being that self. You cannot claim you have a way to step out of your body/brain/heart group and sense the place in any other manner than you do. Regards, TAR

iNow, From what stance, are you making this claim that I should be humble? Who or what is it I should bow down to, in your mind? You have nothing but guesses as to a higher life form. Even if you and dimreepr and Dennett can imagine a purer or more capable consciousness, that does not make such a consciousness exist. Nor are there any better judges of the situation, than humans, to point to, to prove me wrong and you right. We only have humans to ask. Only have humans to care. Only have humans to judge. Even some wonderful computer program that simulated everything a human can do, and do everything faster and more error free than a human, would be written by....guess who...a human. Regards, TAR

iNow, I suppose you are referring again to the non-existent super conscious races in other star systems, that we will never talk to, or the whales and octopi who have a different way of paying attention to and utilizing the environment? Who or what has more or better human consciousness than a human. And the fact that I was just outside and saw a nice sky and beautiful trees and a wife, that were all actually there, sharp, in focus and coherent, I would say however I am doing it, is very very workable. And since you do it in an approximate manner, and it works for you too, I would say that is absolute proof of its value and utility. You have absolutely nothing better to offer in the way of consciousness, so there is no arrogance involved. It is not the same as saying my race is better than another race, that would be arrogant. But to say my species is the best is not arrogant, it is simple evident. No animal is better at being a human than a human. No machine is better at being a human than a human. You think, perhaps that consciousness can be created in a machine? Are you arrogant enough to think you can create life, as well? I wish you would explain what it is you think I am ignoring, or ignorant of, concerning human consciousness, and I wish you would explain exactly who you think I am putting down, to consider human consciousness excellent. Regards, TAR

iNow, Am I characterizing his belief in AI and his reliance on computers ability to simulate completely what the human does, in the way of consciousness, incorrectly? I have not read all of Kant's works. I have not even finished Critique of Pure Reason, but that does not make me unable to comment on what of his work I have read, and think about the implications of what he has said, that I have heard. Between saying I was not as familiar with Dennett as you were, you having seen him speak and having read some of his works, I watched a talk on the internet and got some idea of how he thinks, what he is trying to say, and how he goes about saying it. My impression, built around our argument about illusion, was that he thinks there is a better way to be conscious than the way we do it, as humans. Like perhaps we are being fooled, and there is a way to understand reality directly, without being thusly fooled. I am not asking here whether I understand Dennett's whole worldview. What I am asking is do you agree with someone (maybe Dennett) that believes the human consciousness that we are talking about on this thread, is faulty. Or do you believe as I do, that it is excellent? Regards, TAR

Gees, Thank you for nicely correcting my wrong spelling of Dennett. Others with confirmation bias would have pointed it out as an indicator of my idiocy. I am glad you operate under the joke advice I used to give people I was helping on a technical hotline I manned. "Listen to what I mean, not what I say!" Also, thank you for that last post's ideas. It made me think of a number of things on several levels that I want to comment on...but today the weather is nice and I am working on an outside project that requires painting and such and the times for this are numbered as we are getting into fall in NJ and I should go out, rather than be typing here. But on the analog, digital thing, just think of the old analog clock with a sweep second hand. It did not "tick" and go from one second mark to the next, all at once. The second hand existed in every spot between the two marks, in a smooth proportion fashion. In a digital world it is either 12:00:59 or 12:01:00. In an analog world there are an infinite amount of "times" between the two marks, not limited by the amount of digits you have to express the tininess of the increments. Regards, TAR (Dennett is interested in expressing the world in terms of ones and zeroes, on an off, so that we can make a conscious machine by breaking down a conscious human into a Turing machine, reproducing that machine with wires and silicon, and coming up with consciousness.) Not likely, in my mind to work, in an analog world where all the times between the second marks are used.