Mike Smith Cosmos

The largest category would be bacteria, bacteria dominate everything, from raw numbers to simple volume bacteria are the dominant life forms on this planet. Everything else is an afterthought at best...

 

Yes I see what you mean , and they have found some bacteria in outer space.

 

But breaking up the overall environment of space, the universe, and everything into manageable chunks , my desire is to think in terms of ' who ' is contained in which ' chunk' , and can we arrange those ' chunks ' into some form of Heirachy.

 

For example I am thinking of the goldfish in my pond being ' there' in their world . And me being 'here ' in my world . See following two pictures taken 5 minutes ago .

 

Them fish in their realm

 

 

Me , human in my realm ( world )

 

 

Who is in the next realm ( universe beyond ) ? Of the growing Heirachy?

 

 

Mike

Upward hierarchy, My fish know me, they come to me to be fed. Some of them actually hide from strangers, many of them actually have personality quirks. I'm not really sure what you mean by hierarchy, intelligence? Among the fish there is a pecking order, some school, some lead the school, others are loners or live in small groups, some eat the others and even when they aren't big enough to eat their tank mates the prey fish tend to avoid the predators.

 

In the wild things are different, some fish seem to actually seek out confrontation, others hide, and octopus love to be fed. In the sea I am low man on the totem pole, sea life chooses to tolerate me or not, an Orca is definitely above me, on land a tiger is above me as is an elephant. I'm not really sure we are talking about the same thing. I see life as a web, not a ladder...

 

BTW I just released a new video of one on my fish tanks, can you tell which fish know me and which ones are new? Not as easy as you would think...

 

Great stuff . More advanced than me in recognising ( what I call Heirachy ) . At the moment I am not trying be too spacific , lest I get it wrong . But I think, even going by my and your experience with your gold fish , we all ( gold fish and humans, seem to take their place and role in the Heirachy. It covers a whole range of behaviour , but the bottom line is we humans are up here on dry land . , and they are down there in the pond . Similarly for the goldfish , they are drifting about like lords of the pond , and what they eat if it's living ( or was alive before the gulped them down ) , down there in the slime or dodging about the surface , one layer of the Heirachy down . ( these crawly things )

 

The big question is " If we are down here on Earth dodging about doing our thing in our level of the Heirachy, what or who is One Notch up from us . There must be something higher up the line , because we are not responsible for happenings or ranking within the great big arena away from Earth. So we can not lay claim to higher up the Heirachy?

 

 

Probably the government.

.

 

My first reaction and reply to " probably the government " was to say NO.

 

But on reflection Government is maybe something we should pursue . After all if left to just run riot we have the sort of thing going on currently .

Things being blown up , people dying in prison , high rise flats catching fire , as well as woodland and a whole plethora of chaos.

 

So yes maybe we should look toward a benign world government as a next Heirachy notch UP .

 

MIKE

Presumably the hierarchy "upwards" would point to whatever would supplant the human race. That has to make cockroaches favourite.

.

I think the hierarchy upwards deserves a serious consideration .

 

However by way of a setting for the upward direction I have today had more experience with the platform I have chosen for this discussion , namely the living environment around me and my goldfish . Today we had a new welcome visitor .

I was staring at one of my nearby goldfish he/she/it was lurking a couple of feet from where I was sitting , being aware the Uk hit a temperature not experienced for 40 years (since 1976 ) . None the less I was sitting there , and who should appear but a dragonfly , which settled on an aquatic green plant not 1 foot from my hand , I captured an image on my I phone of both dragonfly on the plant and goldfish under the weed top right . ( I phone image follows , also paining this afternoon in a session with friends , part finished )

We have here a mini environment , which I can use for discussing the Upward Heirachy) why this is relevant , is , There is nothing staged here ( other than me /observer ) . So from this we can build the possible

upward Heirachy

 

 

 

 

Mike

But wouldn't that simply be the heirarchy as perceived by humans. It would surely be different from any heirarchy perceived by cougars, penguins, or rose bushes? And if that is the case, would it be of any particular value?

Yes it would be of value to us as the ' Human Species ' , . Although I might have an academic reason as to how goldfish perceive me as a human , I am more interested in what I can perceive , looking up the heirarcy .( from us as humans )

 

Mike

Sigh. Stop repeating that without thinking about it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms

 

And you certainly don't know for sure that your fingers exist. They could be a product of your imagination. (As could the entire universe, including the embers of this forum.)

.

 

We were arguing about Decartes and the nature of reality when I was at Brunel College , back in the 1960's. Obviously the nature of reality has a lot of " related to whom , does it apply " . Descarts logical reasoning was :-

 

That the ONLY thing absolute that ' I Descartes know is ' that I exist ' , he took logical reasoned steps in thought , until he reached his finger ends ' , then I think it went a bit woolly , if I recall correctly . Other philosophers then continued the argument , in the great beyond . People like Bishop Berkley, and James Lock .

 

I am ( by my life's experience ) inclined to agree. But I have strayed , by the ( indirect it is true ) experience of life into the outer regions beyond my fingertips . This by the experience of other humans , scientists , astronaughts , astronomers , thinkers , philosophical persons . To have a fuzzy picture extending to the moon , Mars , Jupiter , the asteroids , and beyond to andromeda Galaxy , as well as the deep ocean , rock strata , and beyond. By all these wonderful images and experiences , I am convinced we , including me on the inside region , inside my fingertips , combine to make up a part of fantastic reality. Beyond this expance and depth I ' suspect there is further reality beyond even this ( as indeed Descarte did in his limited access to reality ) .

 

It is time we tried to NOW take a leap of beyond our ' boarders of reality ' as Other Philosophical thought has taken from time to time . We may need to explore the unseen , the invisible , the Unknown . Not to be limited by established Dogma .

 

Mike

Once you define a criterion, you can set up a hierarchy. Animals that have no fear tend to get hurt/killed (often eaten).

.

.

I think ' respectful fear 'could certainly be one of the criteria , however I think there are other criteria like demonstrable intelligence for instance , care , bonding and respect for others like ' the young, the less fortunate , the leaders, their mates/ partners ' and no doubt others besides.

 

I care for my goldfish , I also care for my partner/mate, I also fear many living things .

 

Without putting numbers on it , I think it is possible to get a feel for this ' hierarchy ' business , sufficient to look downwards and upwards from the goldfish , and downward and upwards from humans .

 

This should make an interesting excersise.

 

I think we all feel ' care ' , animals , fish , humans alike !

 

Mike

I would say they probably look up to John Cleese and Ronnie Barker... but probably look down on Ronnie Corbett. (if you remember that old sketch ;-) lol )

 

Maybe they look down on grubs and little edible worms... although being honest, I reckon you might be over thinking it, I doubt goldfish think that much about it - not in the same capacity as you do anyway. It has been debunked that they only have a 7 second memory, but I still don't think that they are associated much with deep thought. I do not know if they are capable of picturing their own position in the food chain or not.

 

 

.... PS - It's hot here too in the SE.

What do you think the goldfish think of me ?

 

Mike

The thoughts of Cats and Dogs:

 

"They feed me, groom me, let me out when I want to go out, clean up my droppings...."....

 

DOGS:....."They must be Gods!"

CATS......"I must be a God!"

GOLDFISH...."if he puts his foot in here I can nibble the cheese off of it"

Yes, very good !

 

But now I need to work out ? In the Heirarchi 's ?

 

Gold Fish , what do they look down upon . ( they look up to me , but what downwards)

Humans , what do we look up to ? ( the gold fish downward , but what upwards )

 

Mike

 

Phew ! It's like an oven down here in southwest England. I think I might just get in the pool ( lock , stock , and barrel )

I don't see a hierarchy. At best there is a (partially) directed graph. You can choose different organisms to be on "top" depending on your criteria.

 

If there were a hierarchy, I see no need (or likelihood) for it to extend infinitely in both directions, so the question "who is above" (or below) is not necessarily meaningful.

.

 

Firstly I would like to demonstrate , that a layer of hierarch actually exists , based on " fear " and " lack of fear " .

 

A few moments ago , ( you need to know ,we in England are in the middle of some form of abnormal ' Heat Wave ' )

I am breathless with the heat , I thought I must put my feet in water . Seeing the fish in the pond , I thought Ideal ( big expance of cold water ( ideal ) . One of the gold fish was right at the edge ,where I wanted to put my feet. Our relationship is there but a bit ' stand off ish ' at times

 

I gently lowered my feet in , gasping for cold . The goldfish did not move , just a few inches away . Extraordinary .it stayed there for quite some time , then moved into the distance to the other fish .

 

Our relationship exists !

 

!

 

We now need to look up and down the Hierarchy. Exciting

 

Mike

 

Maybe I need to put my head in the pond with my goggles and snorkel ?

Probably the government.

Yes , but they are just human , like me .

As I am a different species to the fish , a more advanced species , by some good measure.

 

What is the next species ' up the way ' to us humans ?

 

Mike

I find myself studying the goldfish in my pool , and seeing how I stack up in the hirarcy of living things .

In my immediate hirarcy , I am clearly ' Up Here ' and they are quite content to be ' down there'

 

I feed them , battle off the foes like frogs . Feed them , count them , clean their water, plant water plants, reeds .

We have a good relation.

 

What I wonder is what if I think about the other way ?

 

What is next above me , looking down ?

 

 

 

Mike

I don't want to bring myself up. I just want to discuss the truth.

.

I do not mean you are elevating yourself ( high up above others ) .

 

I mean you are noticing a very important truth . Namely , as Descartes stated ,, the only thing you know with absolute certainty is working outwards from the central you , to the end of your fingers . .,beyond that is .. Out there .. You are all there is in absolute certainty . Everything else , you have to prove by assumptions .

 

Mike

.

Example, the truth that I am typing this sentence now.

There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute. Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist. The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence.

.

.

 

Randolph

 

I think your idea to bring YOURSELF high up , if not uppermost , into the idea of Reality , is a very , very good step .

 

If ALL ELSE fails to come to the fore :

 

You KNOW YOU ARE REAL Because you are thinking and conscious you are thinking , right at this moment you are thinking !

 

I think this was the philosophy of one of the great thinkers ( maybe. Lock, Berkley, or Decart )

 

+1 for your idea

 

Mike

.The slight irony of all this bag business,is ,

That a year or so ago , I got so worked up about this problem , I thought I would start observing , people with bags .

Postman , women , men , myself etc .

 

What I noticed about postmen , and regular Bus drivers, is that they carried quite a lot , some of it reasonably heavy. They seemed to raise there shoulder quite high, compared with the unused shoulder, to stop the bag slipping off . Women too seemed to have problems with keeping the bag under control. The contents of Women's bags are a whole subject on its own .

 

To combat this slipping off the shoulder, which I also find annoying , particularly if you bend down to do up your shoe laces , the whole thing comes swinging around and over your face .

 

To combat this I looked into designing some form of shoulder hook which would prevent this happening. But somebody has already invented and marketing it.

 

While doing research I asked a man I found walking over a canal bridge, spontaneously . What do you do to carry all you need while walking the canals ? To which he replied " I acquired this great body top" it had about 15 small pouches only across the front . One for this one for that , " he said as he demonstrated where his keys were, his wallet, his sandwich, his map. "

 

Judging the trauma I go through just to find my keys from two outside pockets to two trouser pockets , how he managed 15 pouches ??

 

Trouble is if you don't do something , you have this single chasm of a bag that you forage through like a pig though undergrowth .

 

Mike

Here is a real life experience with the " Bag Nightmare /frustration " .

 

I just said to my wife , I was off to Exeter to see the W.H. Smith store , to see if they could locate a very recent copy of New Scientist . of the article on

 

THE HIGGS BANG . Sounded interesting when I read the future coming article . However I think I have missed the issue of " the new scientist " that was to have it in. However my wife interjected , as I was putting on my black sholder bag , " what about the morning walk for the dog " Ah yes , well ok, I will take her down the park ( dog , not wife ) . 1 hour later I return in my little smart car , parked outside the house , reached to the passenger seat for my shoulder bag that I had thrown onto the seat . I had already removed my ignition key ( part of a bundle of keys ) .

 

The bag would not come up . I looked down and the strap had become intertwined with the hand brake . I put my right hand down ( which had my cluster of keys in ) and as I fought to untangle the strap of my bag from the hand brake , the keys made that distinctive sound of falling metalwork as they decended into that dreaded cavern between the front seats , handbrake and central carpeted drive shaft . By this time I was trying to get the dog out of the car , avoid passing cars , kneel down to try and grope my way blind under the front seat. All because my sholder bag has a continuous sholder strap , now caught up , immovable in a mixture of keys , handbrake , metal seat runners , and the odd sweet paper, dog, keys, bag , ............I give up .....

 

 

All I wanted

 

was to sit in the beautiful flower garden , beneath blue skys , and read about " The Higgs Bang "

 

Mike

If you make a bag that's narrower than its height it will fall over easily.

If you make one that's wider then its height it will be stable.

However, imagine making a bag by fixing a handle to the middle of the top of a pizza box.

 

If you think it's a workable idea- try it.

 

Then get some sort of rucksack.

.

 

Yes, the handle in the middle of the bag's top flap, does have a serious set of consequences as described by Dr Crettin above. Once the flap is open , the bag becomes grossly off centre, tips over to one side, some contents easily fall out , which makes it often more off centre, more contents fall out . Then the bag and its content occupy a disproportionate area of the floor space than was ever intended. Then one throws the bag down in despair , and one goes muttering off into the distance saying

 

" why does not somebody invent a sensible bag ,that doesn't become annoying once you put it down ? Once you put it on , once you try and look in it when you are wearing it , and once you try and get it off "

 

Ps

 

The rucksack idea is ok ,if you are going hiking or can afford the time and agony of going through bodily contortions for 5 minutes , ( every time you put the bag on or off.)

 

But if you just want to grab your bag , go to the car , throw it on the back seat without its contents going to the four winds , and from then on, you spend 10 minutes looking for your :-

 

' I phone' ,that has slipped out under the car seat that is unbelievably aukward to see underneath. By this time you have gone past the point of no return , and think about joining a monastery and giving up all worldly goods !

 

Mike

 

Ps 10 minutes ago my wife said to me " look under that kitchen table " at my art bags and shoulder day bag . " You need to do something about that , that is quite rediculous " to which I replied " quite so " !

 

I paid $30US. The 'molded shoulder strap' I referred to with my bag is padded & wider than the rest of the strap and spreads the load nicely. It also alleviates the 'slip off' by virtue of its curve. My bag easily swings from my back to my side or front with ease and I can access all compartments without taking it off my shoulder. The many pockets on my bag let me sort into categories and sizes which is great for not loosing track of things. Since I know what I have along and where I put it, I can usually find what I am after by feel/touch alone. Besides the extra pockets visible in the pic I put up, there is a zippered pocket under the flap, zippered mesh pockets at either end of the main interior, and it came with a velcroed interior divider that I can custom position for my load. Also, under the top flap there is a zippered fly that entirely closes the interior.While the company apparently isn't making this model anymore, it is available on E-bay for $40US. >> Allen fishing gear bagPS Besides carrying the bag, I wear a lightweight fisher/sports vest in which I carry smaller items such as a field notebook, pencil, eyeglasses, plastic collection bags, compass, matches, lighter, loupe, TP, bandaids, flagging tape, and 7X35 binoculars. Ohhh I cut a handsome figure!

Sold to the man with the Jack Russel ............who supplies me with good companionship on a walk every day, peppered with a little ' grief' each time , like sight of a , Cat, Postman, wild rabbit , or other moving ' things'

 

Well I will try and track one down . Thanks for the tips .

 

Mike

Remedy is to think outside the bag. To whit, I was using a bag similar to those pictured on my field tramps and while I liked the close contour as alluded to by Phi, I disliked the falling over as you mention. Not only would the fall let things out, it put the bag in the dirt and often wet ground and foliage. Not what I want for camera gear and notebooks. Anyway, I stumbled on what I need at the hardware store in the fishing section. A fishing gear bag! Stays upright, waterproof bottom, and bright yellow interior. Also, a molded shoulder strap that cut the bite of a straight strap. I get around the cut-out problem Phi mentions by swinging the bag to my back and have no problem negotiating snagging brush and limbs.Mine was by a company called Allen, but this particular model appears to be no longer available. Here's a photo though. (Mine lacks the orange highlights on exterior.)

That is a really good Bag . If I saw one of those in a shop for a reasonable price I would buy it.

Will not fall over easily , plenty of different sections . Really good .

 

I can move on to another complaint I have with current bag design. Because I usually have a few kg a of stuff to cart around , what with I pad , drawing and painting sketch pads, paints and a plethora of bits and pieces , the bag gets heavyish , so I want to take the load off my hands , so need some form of bodily fixing ( say a shoulder or back.

 

The shoulder straps always slip off after a few paces. If I want to secure it by putting the strap over my head , this is ab awkward manuver . Worse, when I then want to reach into my bag or look at something , it becomes an impossible situation and contortions provoke, removing over the head and back again . A new design is long over dew for fixing a bag to the body . .

 

I have just overcome the seeing inside the bag by buying a led light for 90 p. But this is very crude , and currently loose the miniature light in the bag and need another light to find that light . Again a new design is possible but required

 

Mike.

Here is a picture of 3 fairly expensive carrying bags . Put them down for a moment , THEY FALL OVER . And to improve things nicely , they are often BLACK inside , so you can't find anything , that is now jumbled up !

image.jpeg

Remedy , they should ALL. Be redesigned , orientated through 90 degrees , and have an illuminated inside.

Mike

.

 

A device , as important to our daily life , as a carrying device , something to store reference material, and useful for all manner of necessary ' things for daily use' . This contraption is in need of a serious review. If only to solve the two problems mentioned in the opening post namely stay the right way up or orientated when put down , and for contents to be seen , when you look into the blackness in your bag.

 

We do not see many animals , going about their daily life , with shoulder bags, hand bags , carrier bags etc . Although ' bum bags ' had or have a valuable use , there is room for improvement there too.

 

Perhaps we could get some solutions by looking at the natural world from microbe to Galaxy , to see how the rest of the universe , other than Mankind , copes with the requirements , that make us surround ourselves with ' Bags ' that are not very practical ( fall over , and dark as night ,when you look for something inside the bag ) .

 

Perhaps if we look at how birds , plants and animals cope with this problem. Then we could look at atoms , how do they keep everything together, on hand and useful . How does things like planets , stars keep things going .

 

The animals have some useful examples. As does the atomic structure with electrical and magnetic forces. And of course when we look at planets we cannot ignor gravity. However perhaps we are going too large there. But certainly magnetism and electrical charge might have some merit.

 

Mike

Here is a picture of 3 fairly expensive carrying bags . Put them down for a moment , THEY FALL OVER . And to improve things nicely , they are often BLACK inside , so you can't find anything , that is now jumbled up !

 

 

Remedy , they should ALL. Be redesigned , orientated through 90 degrees , and have an illuminated inside.

 

Mike

Even if it does, you have to apply some rational thought to the ideas you have, in order to filter out the nonsense.

 

I am reminded of the story of someone who kept having amazing ideas in his dreams, that contained the secret of the universe. But they faded from his mind within minutes of waking. He decided to keep a notebook by his bed to write down his thoughts as soon as he woke from a dream. In the morning he found his notebook full of things like "the smell of peanut butter pervades all".

.

 

O.k. I can appreciate things could be totally random , if one says " anything goes " . But there can be a halfway compromise . Where one explores thoughts that are outside the realm of established science , yet with a large stretch of the imagination , one could ponder for a passing moment a possible concept that currently does not exist. Then expose the proposed concept to a few ( what if 's , or if that were to be the case ( where could that possibly lead ? ) . Or discuss it with a colleague who has a fairly open mind ?

 

I am sure this has been at the root of many ideas ( thought absurd at the time , that we currently take for granted? )

 

E.g l wonder if quantum tunnelling could work over astronomical distances ( with zero passage of time ) , like between here and the central region of the andromeda Galaxy ?

 

 

Mike

..

I think if one pulls up the late Permian map from the following index of the movement of the supercontinent so , you can see Arabia just on the warm great shallow sea edge ( Tethys Sea ) here is where the trillions of sea creatures were deposited on the bottom of the warm shallow sea . To become the great oil deposits of the region around Arabia .

 

http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm

 

 

 

 

Mike

The idea of logical argument was developed by philosophers as a way of rationalising / formalising the "laws of thought".

 

If you want free-wheeling thinking with no logic or restrictions or basis in reality, then you probably want writers on drugs.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/16/drugs-history-literature

.

 

I take your point , and the references you gave about some famous people , and drugs .

 

I am not advocating drugs as a way to progress philosophical thought .

 

However it does touch , on a recent area of research . Namely , it has come to notice that . DAYDREAMING . which used to be thought of as a lack of discipline , by students and school children . .and more so teachers ( "Smith! , stop looking out the window . Concentrate on the lesson please ) . Now daydreaming has been proven to have some Jewel like content .

 

To quote a recent New Scientist article CONCENTRATE ( NEW SCIENTIST 20 May 2017 ) Caroline Williams .

" A wandering mind is not the enemy of concentration , if you know how to guide it . "

 

Perhaps then is not surprising that some past accounts of famous scientists having gained an insight while under the influence of drugs.

 

I am in no way advocating drug taking , but I can totally endorse getting into a " Day Dreaming " state to enhance creative thought processes . I use this process almost daily in my Retirement .

 

I walk the dog , usually through woodland , along side rivers , in parks . Etc the random nature, and unexpected images are to me the most stimulating way of formulating painting images as well as setting me off on new ideas and new philosophical thought!

 

Mike

I am trying to re find Arabia in the Tethys sea

.

 

It may be surprising but there's still a lot of discussion going about the origin of oil deposits, but most scientists agree that it was most likely plankton and microscopic algae that are responsible for oil formation. So no, your assumption is most likely incorrect. Even if complex organisms could have a part in oil we have now, there would be an immeasurably small amount of those compared to simple microscopic organisms.

 

s.

Yes Mike, exactly.

 

The health and well being of the human population would form one component ( of a multitude of components ) of the total environmental health / quality of the whole planetary ecosystem.

 

Naturally, if all things ( I mean all things ) were measured by a proper global environmental currency then things like, for example, machines which had a measurable detrimental impact on the environmental quality of the planet by virtue of their adverse influence on poor humans then the machines would be assigned a negative environmental value. In time they would be phased out as the New Environmental Capitalism ran it's course.

 

I envisage news reports where leading environmentalists would be able to call for the free market dynamics to be left alone and insisting on environmental capitalism to dictate outcomes. The environmentalists would at last see competition working in favour of the planet rather than against it.

 

The first step in all this of course, is to value the whole planet and for that we will need an army of environmental accountants. Their profession would be subject to regulation by the World Green Bank an executive arm of the United Nations.

 

And ultimately, the guiding principle in all this would be that benefits and downsides for the planet as a whole would be considered before the benefits and downsides of individual businesses, or even nation states. That way your concern about machines would be solved.

I like the sound of what you are saying here ? Are you still around to discuss it ?

 

Mike