pioneer

Whether one considers the equation money equals power right or wrong it is sort of a fact of modern cultural life. Based on this observation it gives insight as to why govenment is so inefficient relative to the private sector. In the private sector, if one wish to achieve power with money they need to figure out a way to make money. They have to provide goods or services than will make them money. The more money they make the more power they achieve. The equation sort of implies goods and services equal money and money equals power.

In the govenment their money comes from taxes. They create money by providing the good and service called higher taxes. If someone went to the store and on one rack we had higher taxes and on the other rack DVD players, it may be a tough choice, but most people would buy the DVD player. So essentially, they create their money for power by offering a service that nobody really wants. I am not saying tax money doesn't do a lot of good things, only the money=power equation for govenment and for the private sector are very different.

When you compare the efficiency of govenment and the private sector these two equations cut to the heart of why govenment is wasteful. The private sector has to provide value up front to get your money. The public sector promises you value after they take your money. You hope they come through with no guarentee.

With money=power the more power someone in the public sector wants, the more money they need to control. This sort of creates a conflict of interest between delivering the promised goods and services, efficiently, and their own need for money=power. In other words, if they can do the job for $1M or $2M, the $2M adds up to more power. Being too efficient sort of makes one less powerful since you have less money. In the private sector, the opposite is true, since they are providing goods and services up front, instead of after the fact with a nebulous promise. If they can do cheaper that means their money will grow so they can have more power. But in the private sector money only grows if they do it less efficiently, so that more money needs to get pumped in.

If you had a public service, which is more expensive than in the private sector, and asked it to trim its budget, to even half the cost savings, the whole fight is not due to inability to be efficient but loss of money=power. We need taxes to provide services that only a govenment can provide. But it would make more sense to require high value up front, with power being equated, not with money, but with the ability to provide high value.

The problem is that taxes are analogous to stolen money that the thieves didn' t have to work for, other than force you to hand it over. It is easy money that the theif then uses to look important to his friends. He is not required to mow your lawn or paint your house for value back. Even he throws you a little bone, you are surprised you recieved any value at all. But if you go the private sector you expect to get your money's worth.

What I would do is say, OK this private high school is highly accredited and will cost $5000/year. I expect my govenment to be able to do the same. That is the value I expect for my my tax money. If you can't deliver then given me back my money and I will spend it there. Aren't their consumer laws in place that address businesses that rip people off. That extra $3000/year is so you can pretend to be powerful and important. It provides no value to me, so give it back. We still get the job done and the money goes where it multiples and not divides.

This was dedicated to Labor Day here in the states, where people work hard so the govenment beaurocracies can maximize power=money.

The capitalist health care system in the United States has the advantage of using free market forces. The result is the best health care system in the world, as far as the range of goods and services that are available at the wink of an eye. The problem is that it is has gotten too expensive for many people such that many go without health care.

The alternate is a socialize or nationalize health system. The problem with this is govenment beaurocracy is very inefficient. To much resources end up going into overhead, such that medical care will be rationed. This has already occurred in other western countries, who have tried this.

The other problem with government involvement, is once you create this monster you can never get rid of it. It just gets fatter and slower. For example, in Atlanta, USA, they spend about $8-9000. per student per year in the public education system. If they gave the tax payers half that they could send their children to an excellent private school and return half back to the tax payers. But the bloated monsters needs to eat and won't go away, so you pay twice as much for lower quality education. It is too well entrench politically, you need to keep throwing money at it.

The free market system is not perfect. One of the problem has to do with the free market driving up demand for goods and services. It sort of like if you own a fast food resturant. If an obese person came in you will not direct them to the salad bar for a cheap meal. Instead, you will make sure you offer them the option to supersize the fries and add an apple pie. If someone has insurance there is no reason to refuse extra care. But this extra care increases the costs across the board making it more expensive.

The socialized system has the advantage that it will be too inefficient to offer all the extra frills. It will be lucky if it can maintain the basic stuff.

The other approach is to leave the free market health system in place, but look for cost savings by approaching the problem at the insurance level. This is a huge middleman that does skim quite a bit off the top. Medical insurance not only supports the medical industry but also the insurance industry. It is a risky business allowing higher rates of return.

Again the two approaches are to allow the free market to allocate resources or allow the goverment to socialize the insurance industry. One possible cooperative effort would be for the government to help set up buying groups, where the economies of scale will allow insurance rates to fall and allow an excess which will bring everyone under the umbrella. It would have to set up as a self sufficient business (post office) and not a govenment agency (EPA) that grows larger by meddling and interferring, in such a way, that assures it can to continue to grow fat and slow.

This is interesting in the sense that it shows how realistic unconscious projections can become. The dream can generate its own reality into which the conscious person can enter and take part in. It makes you wonder what percent of the average person is in touch with reality. Just the subjectivities of normal cultural existance would indicate reality can often become nothing more than a collective belief system. As long as everyone is in the same subjective dream we will call that reality.

A good example is fashion. When the new styles appear, these magic articles of cloth give the wearer strength and poise. When you look back at the power clothes of the past, some of it looks quite silly, i.e., polyester leisure suits. Typically one sees that connection only after they awaken from one collective dream and have entered a new one. People show all the signs of being awake while interacting in a collective dream. Maybe the principle of sleep walking apply; it is better not to wake them.

If you look at the molecular level, rubber, for example, is sort of like a bunch of long molecular chains. When we bounce the ball, deformation at the bottom of the ball compresses these chains and places them into higher energy packing states. They quickly try to release this stored energy and return back to the lower energy state. The result is an expansion to release the stress that propels the ball back upwards.

Equal and opposite force applies so you can only get out what you put in. The ball also propagates some of its stress upward into the ball, with the result the ball will rarely bounce to the same height that it fell, unless you add some extra force to compensate for the impulse loss into the ball.

An interesting material is silly putty made from a silicone type rubber. This material will deform like putty in your hands, but if you throw it on the ground it will bounce like a solid ball. This has to do with the material only being able to deform with force impulses that are stretched out over time. If the impulse is too fast, it acts more like a solid material since the molecules are not able to slide past each other, storing local force.

For example, if you take some silly putty and stretch it slowly, it will stretch and elongate. But if you stretch it with a quick snap, it will shear off in a very smooth plane, as though one has sheared a solid material. The bounce force impulse acts the same way, with the compression too fast to allow the molecules to slide past each, causing a localized force build up, that will cause the putty material to bounce like it is a solid ball.

A kung fu master uses the force/time principle for breaking objects. The idea is to propagate a force impulse so fast that the material can not spread out the force and then bounce it back. The result is a fracture along a plane of the material. If you go too slow, the material will spread out the force and then bounce back the force into your hand, causing bone to fracture. The trick they use is to visualize the stopping point of your hand beyond the object. This assures that your hand won't slow down to soon especially at the point of possible force bounce back. There are demonstrations of some masters breaking a meter of ice. They know their physics, intuitively, and simply exploit a weakness in the material. It takes a lot of faith that science will work under these hazardous conditions.

There is a one gene to one protein template relationship. If you alter one gene you make one new protein. This extra protein may alter the internal environment of the cell and cause other genes to become expressed. But all the products are still from genes that are part of things we eat anyway. If you can make new things without genes you have disproved genetics.

GMO is sort of like mixing two CD's of music. One is a dance CD, that has a message song after three good dance tunes. This message song causes the crowd to sit down to listen. So we take that song out and put another dance song in spot number four, to keep the crowd on its feet, so when the fifth song plays, they are on the dance floor, instead of sitting down at the tables, not wishing to get back up again, to dance. All the songs are good, but sometimes song blending from good two CD's gives a much better final affect. In this case, we want the crops to dance longer.

Meme

A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

If you think about it, there are two types of memes, the first requires the passer push the information forward, such as an advertizer who keeps reinforcing their product, until it takes. This type of meme takes some type of outward charismatic force, repetititon or even peer pressure to get meme-1 to begin propagation. The second or meme-2 is information that is readily absorbed requiring little in the way of push or marketing.

The first is sort of like a viral invasion. The cell resists at first but through push it is able to enter the cell. As the infection grows (more people) it begins to overwelm other cells, for faster transfer. The second is more like a cell using its own natural transport mechanism for food. Dawkin's beliefs or memes are sort of the first kind. He use his position to penetrate the membrane and infect cells for replication.

If you look at small children, especially ages 1-4, their brains have the highest learning rate, as their neurons quickly grow. If one takes a small child and gives them a choice between reading them fairy tales or the newspaper, they will prefer the fairy tells. The fairly tales, or stories of witches, spirits, animals that talk, etc. are absorbed through osmosis and would be meme-2 for them. The newspaper would require repetition, extra manipulsion, (more selling), etc., or is meme-1 to a small child.

Adults are bigger and stronger, but children 4 and under are more natural, with far more natural learning potential. Once they enter school and are forced, manipulated, conned or sold to become young cultural children, then their meme-2 osmosis will often change. Their osmosis is no longer natural but becomes conditioned by their culture. In other words, the natural mind of a small child likes fairy tales. While the meme-1 conditioning of natural child alters osmosis and it begins to diversify.

The universal osmosis consensus of small childern is very similar, during those young years, when they are the most natural. After that culture inputs and conditions the with meme-1 to infest them, so their future osmosis becomes directed down the needs of cultural lines. This osmosis is no longer natural consensus but quite arbitrary. Religion is an extension of fairy tales, or symbolic things that are readily absorbed by the natural mind of a child. It is a counterbalance to cultural viral meme-1 infestions that will evwentually alters natural osmosis into something arbitrary.

Here is the bottom line, all knowledge we have today will change. Each step is like a fad that is treated like it is the final say on things. But the natural osmosis of the small child is eternal and has always been. Religion keeps the natural child alive, as the meme-1 viri of cultures changes clothes season after season, with each season convincing itself, this is the final style. The induced cultural osmosis helps this fantasy along. We sort of go from one fairy tale into another one that is more temporal.

I thought I would help Dawkins advance his meme theory before he falls into the trap of meme-1 infestation leading to altered meme-2 osmosis.

I wasn't discounting the science that has been done, but was only addressing fusion, where the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

But on the other hand, how do we know we are not creating synthetic matter in these huge physics facilities? Synthetic can be every useful, but the theories coming from synthetic may not reflect natural. For example, we can make pure Titanium in the lab. But one needs to be careful about assuming it occurs as a pure material in nature simply because we can make it in the lab. That is not to say that further investigation will not lead to better methods for making pure titanium, but these will bring us further away from knowing how this exists in nature.

If we come back to fusion, all this theory has not led to fusion results. It has generated a lot of data, but how do we know this is not synthetic?

Thanks for the extra details and clarifications. I may have mixed up neurotransmittors and the chemicals that are inputted into the cerebral spinal fluid, which become the water potential the neurons bath in.

Relative to neurotransmittors, the charge is usually more based on dipoles. In the image of the neurotransmittor aspartic acid there are 3 or 4hydrogen bonding hydrogen The H are induced to have a slight positive charge. Being an acid, it can also exist with a negative charged base. This is perfect for lowering positive potential. There are also some organic aspects for an additional tweak. This chemical floating in water is surrounded by water so its affect is spread out before absorption.

The idea of the brain's neuron surfaces being loaded with positive charge, that needs to lower, cuts to the heart of why we need synapses. The synapses, by allowing the positively charged surfaces of neurons to get the closest shows, this is where the positive potential is not quite as high as the bulk neurons. This is reflected in the little bulb on the axon end of the synapse. This wider bulb surface is implicit of lower tension compared to the shaft of the axom before the bulb at the synapse. It is sort of analogus to oil and water with the smallest bubbles having more tension. As the bubbles get larger the tension or potential with the water lowers. Or the bulb end reflects a lowering of surface tension indicative of this being near a zone where the positive potential drops off.

This could also be deduced directly from the firing of the dendrites. Based on this when an axon goes hunting to make a synapse, say on a dendrite, since its little tip is very high in potential, it is going to look for the soft spots on the dendrite which appear to be at the lowest potential. This is reflected by all the right stuff on one spot on the dendrite surface. If it is not the right stuff, the surface potential is too high, such that the axon tip is repelled causing it to continue its search.

The irony is regular fusion, with 1000 times the resources, investigated for a much longer period of time, hasn't even got one good result. Yet nobody is saying this approach needs to be given the same boot. To add to the irony, the only fusion that has been demonstrated (h-bombs) starts with chemicals and uses 1940's physics or modern nuclear chemistry.

The post about the adding consciousness to the brain was getting a little long and departed from the original purpose of the post. I apologize for that. I thought I would start at the ionic level and show some basic relationships for some additional insight.

If you look at the metals K (potassium) and Na (sodium), the metal K is more reactive in water. What this implies is that the K+ and Na+, ions, although both with a single positive charge, are not created equal. The Na+ will tend to hold onto its metallic electron a little stronger, implying that the Na+ ion has more apparent postive charge than the K+ ion. Or the electro-magnetic forces are stronger in Na+.

This can be witnessed by comparing K+ and Na+ ions dissolved in water. The result are the central ions sharing the negative end of the dipole of water to form a structure called a hydration sphere.

Sodium has a stronger interaction with its first hydration shell than potassium, giving the latter a more flexible structure. © 2003 American Institute of Physics. @DOI: 10.1063/1.1559673#

http://www.scripps.edu/~trippm/papers/JCP-2003-118-7062.pdf

When the neurons place the Na+ on the surface, they are using the cation that has the most apparent postive charge and the most tightly bound water in the first hydration shell. The inside is richer in K+ with its lower apparent postive charge and its less tightly held first hydration shell. The situation that is created, are the neuron surfaces are covered with a lot of postive charge, with a relative strong first hydration shell that is relatively stable, relative to K+. The neurons repel each other's positive surfaces, but are anchored so they are not able to move relative to each other. The result is positive potential looking for ways to reduce this potential.

The points where the positive charge on different neurons is able to approach the closest are the synapses. This closeness indicates, this is where the positive charge repulsion will be at a minimum. But since the synapse retains a gap, this implies the positive potential is never zero. The direction of the Na+ current from axon to dendrite or axon, is reflective of the movement from higher toward lower positive potential. One can almost look at the brain as this big bundle of positive charge that is trying to find ways to discharge the potential, i.e,, into synampses.

The hydrations sphere of Na+ is an extension of the positive potential that is on the surfaces of the neurons. In other words, the Na+ does not exist just as isolated Na+, but as Na+ plus hydration. The value of this water is when neurotransmittors appear in the local water, but before they bind onto synapses, these chemicals have their own hydrated what that reflects their polar/nonpolar atoms in their structures. It is sort of an additional tweak at the level of the H ,that affects the surface Na+, even before the neurotransmittor binds to the membrane. Neurotransmittor may have more specificity at the synapse, but its appearance anywhere outside of neurons has an impact before it begins to bind. The cerebral spinal fluid is an extension of the surface water. As features in the core of the brain add chemicals, the positive potential gets tweaked.

They may be how the brain associates memory to valance. Any emotional response, often implies core region chemical input into the CSF. The bulk positive potentials of the brain, gets sort of primed to reflect the best possible way to lower the tweaked positive potential via the synapses. This can not be a random, since any neruon can absorb there chems. There needs to be specific synaptic selectivity for these chems to trigger associated memories.

In crystals, the final geometry is not only impacted by the binding forces between atoms, but also due to external factors such as the solvant composition, foreign atoms, or even something simple like cooling profile. Typically one of the crystal shapes is minimum energy, while others may still be stable but contain some potential relative to the minimum potential shape. For example, if you took steel and hit it in one place with a hammer, this will affect the crystals at the point of impact and add potential. This will often be the first place to rust because of the potential that was added.

Relative to C, diamond is the most stable crystal form of C. The capsid, by looking at it, looks cool, but it appears to indicate stored potential. This could be useful if one wished to build something stable, that contains a little extra potential so it can be used as a type of catalyst. Or it may allow stable electron states that are a little higher in energy than normal.

Addressing viral self assembly, the potential in the water will put the squeeze on anything that tries to increase its potential. At the same time, the viral components have binding areas that allow these to minimize their own energy. Between the push of the water and the pull of the binding areas they self assemble. It does its best to minimize potential under the circumstances. But again, like the capsid, minimum potential is relative. Potential can be stored into a stable configuration. This makes it easier, later on, for the virus to shed its protein shell and release the DNA.

One way to look at GMO food, is not just reject all, but to consider what they splice in. For example, if one splices the genes that make corn grow tall into strawberry bushes, so they grow taller, then what you have are genes that the body can already digest from corn being transferred to strawberries. No new genes have been created. If we can eat corn and eat strawberries, then corn-berries have the same genes as if we ate a spoonful of each at the same time. When the body digest this, it only sees mush dissolved in stomach acids, containing only things eaten before.

If you splice a gene from a poison mushroom into a tomato, I might be a little worried. If you go to a salad bar and load the plate with genes from ten veggies, your stomach see all these various genes and eats away. If you were to cross these, all those genes have been eaten before. If you cross some type scrub weed that is slug resistant, I would make sure the makers of that cross demonstrate that they will eat the scrub weed pure with no harmful affects. If they are willing to munch out, I'll try it too. This not a perfect test, but at least genes the body has eaten before will do no harm since it knows how to eat these.

The simplest venturi affect is simply driving in an auto with the window crack about 0.5 CM. Take a cigarette and watch the smoke get pulled out. You don't have to smoke the cigarrete to do this experiment. You can use anything that smolders or makes smoke, like a fine cigar.

What also uses the venturi principle is the chemical injector for a pressure washer. It is a larger tube with a small side tube. The speed of the water through the larger tube, will pull a suction or vaccum that draws chemical in through the small tube. The two streams mix, to suds the house.

If you have a leaf blower or even the air output from a shop vac, you might be able to rig an attachment. Take the filter out for more air veocity. The attachment is a simple straight tube extension with a small side tube. You can then attach a clear hose and to see how high you can lift water. The height will allow you to calculate your vaccum.

An analogy to the brain is a computer. Neuroscience investigates the hardware. It has done a good job at knowing how semi-conductors work (synaptic analogy). It also knows about the mother board and can determine the function of all the components that are connected. This is important information. This hardware knowledge is up to quad core speed.

The cognitive scientists look at the output response using various inputs. They click the mouse in a vary scientific way. During this time, neuroscience, investigates, how the hardward handles this input and output, and is able to correlation almost any simple mouse click.

What we have currently is the hardware and the BIOS. With the hardware and the BIOS you can test a computer without an operating system. The investigation that is lacking is investigating the operating system. The operatiing system of a computer is not part of the hardware. But the brain is different. The hardware appears to be able to generate its own operating system. Or genetic factors that define the brain include a bulit in operating system.

When you do work with crystals, sometimes it is easier to describe them with more than three spatial dimensions, say (a,b,c,d), since the planes of some crystals have four basic directions. Inspite of using 4-D to describe the crystal, the crystal still exists in 3-D space. The 4-D is done primarily to make the math easier and has nothing to do with there being more that 3 spatial dimensions within the crystals. One could still do it with (x,y,z) but the math gets too cumbersome. This conversion makes it easier but can lead to confusion when people assume this extra dimension in crystals gives them magically healing properties.

If I wanted to plot flowers as a function of white, red, pink, blue and yellow I could use a 6-axis plot, to put everything on the same graph for easy cross reference. But that does not mean this flower exists in 6-D. It still exists in 3-D but the properties of color are easier to express with 6-D. If I was clever, I could use the flower as t, and use the three primary colors as x,y,z .That way I could reduce my plot to 4-D, which is reality.

Dimension in a loose sense is a place to put each variable to make the math easier. But this should not be confused with space-time, which is 4-D. The more dimensions we have, the easier it is to include everything. If computers did not exist, these n-D graphs would get confusing, and there would be a push to increase the number of graphs so each will only have maybe 3-D. Then the results of these many graphs would be replotted also in 3-D, etc., until the final plot looks like the 4-D of space-time. This way science would circumvent speculation about magical places.

The inside of the shell may show zero gravity. But if you introduce another mass, inside, the remaining empty space is still zero gravity but the mass will still have own gravity, since by the nature of mass, it has gravity. What happens, the surface needs to change its gravity field so it can compensate for the inner mass, so that the inner space is zero gravity.

So if we had two shells one with and one without an inner mass, both will have the zero gravity inside, but the outsides will be slightly different.

Here is a quote from the article suggested by BenTheMan.

 

"Something interesting to note is that when the inner sphere is introduced, the charge distribution on the outer sphere changes. The excess charge no longer lies only on the outside. The charge must redistribute itself so that E = 0 inside the conductor."

I believe that SR and GR both have the same constraints when it comes to acheving a speed of light or singularity reference. Both will take infinite mass/energy. The blackholes we see are finite points, since by the theory of their formation, it doesn't require infinite mass to form. If all the mass in the universe formed a blackhole, this would be close to a singularity. Nobody can prove it either way, but since GR and SR both generate the same types of parameters, based on energy potential, i.e., time dilation and distance contraction, it would seem logical that mass and relativisitic mass should also show the same types of limiting constraints. Both mass and relativistic mass loosely equate since both are connected to energy.

The SR affect has nothing to do with the reference you chose. It only works on the reference that is in motion. The reason this is so is that only that reference had the energy input needed to achieve the final state. The difference is the difference between 2-parameter and 3-parameter SR. With 2-parameter SR, the references appears relative. But if you add the third or mass parameter, only the one with real velocity and energy is able to generate relativistic mass. The stationary reference never changes relative to a 3-parameter analysis.

I did this example before, but I will do it again. It is called the SR workout. You go to a track and sit yourself down in a chair. You then focus on the fastest runner and using relative reference, pretend he is stationary and you are the one in motion. Yet get to burn calories without ever having to move or bust a sweat.

Obviously, common sense would say, inspite of the relative reference, it is only the one with absolute motion, who is using energy. With 2-parameter SR we can pretend. But with 3-parameter SR, you need to do an energy balance. The result is that relative reference does not always express the reality of what is going on.

Relative to the house and occupants, we had to pump a lot of energy into it to be able to get those velocities. This energy is the basis of the time capsule or the time dilation. The person left on earth didn't get that same energy. So his cycles will stay the same as they have always been.

In this example, one does not technically travel back in time in the normal sense. But it does create an affect that would look the same. It would be a living flashback to younger days when life was about to unfold.

Isreal is in a tough position in the middle east. It is the neighbor in the neighborhood that is not the same. They sort of cut their grass and plant shrubs to make their house look nice. The rest of the neighbors are more like people living with broken cars parked in the weed garden in the front yard. Isreal is going to be a target since they remind everyone of what they all want but can't have. If it wasn't for the natural resource of oil, the middle east would be a lot more backwoods than they are today. Many have the external trimmers of the 21st century, but live in the past.

The US involvement with Isreal sort of looks like the rich neighbor in other town doesn't care about anyone, except that other rich neighbor. But it is sort of a marriage of necessity since without that help, the neighborhood would try to homogenize toward the lowest common demoninator. But the continued presence of Isreal helps set the bar a little higher, so that those who wish to do better for their families, can see one such example. It is already occurring in many of the oil rich countries that are peaceful. The Arabs are smart people they just need a good example to strive toward. Isreal shows that both moderization and traditions can work together.

Maybe another way to look at gears is to consider saw blades. Usually saw blades with a lot of teeth are only good for fine finish and tend to cut slower. While blades with fewer teeth are able to cut much faster but leave a lot of ragged edges in the wood. Metal cutting blades tend to have small teeth, while ceramic blades have tiny teeth such a diamond grit.

This distribution is connected to heat, stress and metal fatigue. The larger teeth tend to undergo more stress, which causes heat. The smaller teeth tend to have a shorter stress impulse for less heating. Too much heat can cause changes in the properties of the metal, causing failure.

With machine steel, after a certain temperature, the atomic structure begins to change away from the small crystals used to create the original hardness properties. These little crystals imply atomic strain. The heating allows larger crystals since these contain much less atomic potential. This turns the steel into more flexible steel. Now your torgue becomes transmitted into softer steel, increasing metal fatigue problems. A gear breaking at 20,000 rpms is a bullet that will destroy a machine.

One can explain this with chemical affects. For example, the red spot on Jupiter shows that chemicals can and do segregate based on chemical selectivity. For example, I can take CH4 (methane) and NH3 (ammonia) in equal proprotions and then pass these over water. The Methane will enrich in the gas stream and the ammonia will preferentially dissolve into the water. If we add alcohol to the water the balance will shift.

Looking at that photo if we assume that the original cloud was blue and that central star was generating a new chemical that is different, than the blue reaction will change with the result being a color change. Based on the change from blue to red, if phenothalene was present it could be a simple pH change (just kidding) Or to get more complicated with the blue hotter, the new added chemical is sort of an inhibitor that lowers the reaction rate closer to the center of the pic resulting in the red emission. If we just focus on common atoms this could look like dark matter.

Another simple explanation is the central stars are evolving their output. Say if begins with H and C and then goes to H and N, the environment of the H gets different, such that the H emission reflects this change.

I am not trying to hijack the discussion, but was trying to add the most important variable of any brain model, which is human consciousness. Where I originally got this angle was connected to the psychology of Jung. Jung was the star pupil of Freud. Freud expected Jung to carry on his work, but Jung wanted to approach the mind from a different angle. They had a parting of the ways, and Jung went out on his own.

Part of the reason Jung was always met with limited acceptance was that his approach relied heavily on symbolism from mystersism, alchemy and religon. Science was trying to break away from all these connections to the superstition past, such that any connection to this past was seen as regressive and not worthy of the evolving push for science.

What Jung didn't have in his time, was a way to make an analogy to something that was common to the scientific experience of the day. In modern times, we have computers, programs and subroutines. For example, one can start the memory defrag program on their computer and the computer goes off by itself. We do not have to control every step. The same appears to be true of the brain. For example, we can control breathing. But once we shift our focus, the breathing returns to default values. Depending on when we measure the anatomy of breathing will have an impact on the types of brain functions that appear to occur. There will be a common set of routines in both cases, but the first case will also add other subroutines to the picture.

When Jung would talk about the symbolism of say, mythology, he was talking about how aware the ancients were of these inner programs. They would presonify, for example, falling in love with a goddess. In other words, these programs and subroutines can override the will of the ego. The programs seem to have their own goal in mind with the ego often just there for the ride. They did not know about computers to create a logical explanation of what was occurring, but there were conscious of the affects that were occurring, which in modern times are far more unconscious. We either explain these with bio-chems or some type of esoteric philosophy.

A good analogy is someone playing an X-box game, who knows little about programming. To them you push this button and play the game. To a programmer, this button initiates a sequence of logic steps. It may be better not to know all these steps, since it does prevent tampering. If you know the logic steps of the programs and how they work, one can alter the program much easier with viruses that can take over game control. That was the problem with mythology. It made people very conscious of the background programs, but it also allowed conscious tampering until they would begin to add viruses to default to programs causing them to becoming more unnatural. The push into monetheism was an attempt to prevent tampering. All these polytheism systems, could trigger many of the program and harm the default values, such that the human brain/computer would go off into renegade programs, i.e, demons. At least in modern times, we just push the buttom and can do less harm.

But on the other hand, to see how these programs are organized did require differentiating the programs into their subroutines and then try to tamper. It was sort of reverse engineering that learned from mistakes. After messing up, one has to go back and debug and in the process learn how it works. Or at least allow things to return to default values. The anatomical approach is much safer and does prevent tampering. Although medication can have an impact on programs. It becomes sort of inevitable that to make directed progress in -neuro-medical selectivity, one needs to address these programs and determine what are the default values. It is not one or the other, but both approaches are addressing the integrated affects that we call the living learning brain, with human consciousness.

Typically time travel has you going back into time. I simply change the reference and had the past frozen in time, and you moving forward. The past in the house never moved to your future, so it is still the past. Again the ideas was not to violate any of the laws of known physics but to create the same affect one would see if you went back in time 20 years to the house you once lived in with your friends.

She would not be a real blond without a few blond moments. Remember this was a beauty contest and not college jeopardy. That means bathing suit, evening gowns, and poise while being stared at by dirty old men.

One thing I did noticed, she answered in the style of many politians when trying to avoid a tough question. There go into this big circle of rhetoric, until they are confident you forgot what the original question was.

One way is to find a friend who is just the opposite, who maybe takes too many chances in life. You sort of learn from each other. You teach him or her a healthy dose of practical fear, and he or she can teach you a healthy dose of impulsiveness.

Another way is to start with your lightest fear or anxiety and sort of put it to the test. For example, if you sort of have a minor fear of dogs, go to someone who is knowledgeable about dogs. Often they will want to share their hobby. Bring it up about you a slight anxiety. They may help you by introducing you to a nice calm dog. That will demonstrate there are always exceptions even to the rules of fear. Fight the smallest battles first to get you sea legs and then work you way up the ladder.

Another approach that often helps is to go to a Martial Arts School. You are not trying to become Bruce Lee, but the atmosphere builds a certain respectful confidence. There are people of all ages and sexes. As time goes on, your muscles strengthen and reflexes get quicker. You can see the transformation as all different personality types seem to merge into a calm confident in themselves.