questionposter

Did you seriously just try to suggest that YOU know more about ME than I do? Wow, dude. Okay. That's uhhmmm... yeah.

I don't really know where this attitude is coming from, I merely stated I've talked to religious people and they have told me what they experience, and because such a diverse group of religious mono-theists have described the same general experience to me, I think it is logical to assume it can be applied to many mono-theists. If your religious then you probably know more about the doctrines of your particular religion than me, that's all I'll really say about it. Besides, you don't know me either, how do you know I don't have a major/minor in philosophy?

This is a massive and unsupported assumption you've just made. How in the world could you possibly know this... about me... a man you've never met? You don't. You're guessing, and it's not only wrong, but irrelevant.

Well I know many religious people, so I don't think it's unsupported, so while it may seem illogical to you for me to make that assumption, there's enough evidence for me to accept it from my point of view.

I suspect you would enjoy the study of neuroscience, and even some more basic psychology. These questions are not as inaccessible as you seem to think, and the answers are actually quite fascinating.

I've heard that research has shown that parts of the brain detach (not physically) from each other when praying, but that's about it.

I have given it several times. Several posters noticed it. You can search it by yourself instead asking me again.

Actually, many people have complained about how you didn't give a precise definition and how you kept saying you already stated it.

You would read what I wrote, instead making such ridiculous questions.

But my claims were not of philosophical interpretations, they were talking about those mechanics, which you also supported until I pointed out they use wave mechanics. You also weren't very clear either.

Did you mean "If the existence..." and "thEn" instead of "thAn"?

If we had a wave function that had a probability of 0.00001 in a certain region, we would only have a 0.00001 chance of detecting the photon there. If you had 10 regions with detectors, then your probability is 0.0001. You would need to be making measurements everywhere in order to instantly detect a particle whose wave function had an infinite spatial extent. But in your scenario, you don't. You have 1 observer. The probability of him seeing the photon is whatever the probability is where he is. It's not 1.

I'm not saying the single observer will automatically measure it, I'm saying in my scenario it's theoretically possible to have a photon that you can measure from light years away instantaneously because of how delocalized it is, and besides, doesn't it only add up to "1" considering infinite distance? Like the summation of y/x with the upper limit as infinity or something?

However, this infinite delocalization doesn't happen, at least not very often enough to be known to happen, so there has to be some kind of parameter, and since the wavelength is unknown, we can't say it's the wavelength.

For some who is asking, you seem to be doing a lot of lecturing. And you're wrong about too much of that subject matter to be lecturing on it.

That's why I'm posting this question, but your just saying "your changing the question, stop lecturing me" instead of answering the question directly regardless of if I changed it.

The probability of being measured at any particular place is not 1; for a wave function with infinite extent in most places it's going to be very very small. It's only if you integrate over all space that you get a probability of 1, and you are not measuring everywhere. So your conclusion here is wrong.

I don't see how what your saying disproves I'm saying, unless you were trying to say the correlation of probability doesn't exist. I'm not talking about normalization or anything like that, and regardless of if it's one, how likely you are to measure it at any given distance can obviously change. If a photon is as localized as a gamma-ray or delocalized as a radio wave, it is one, so let's just imagine its a REALLY REALLY low wavelength radio wave that spreads over light years. If a source emitted a photon like that, don't I logically have the ability to instantly measure it from light years away and wouldn't its probability still be 1? Unless your trying to say it's always one...until you get past a certain localization point? I'm not saying it's measured from "every" point. A radio wave spreads out over the length of a football field, yet cellphones still work.

But this is a different scenario, so what's the connection other than some of the vocabulary? You have a photon. Where's the entanglement? With what is the photon entangled.

I said it wasn't about entanglement, that was just to show that my statement isn't likely wrong unless maybe I didn't describe it clearly because it can be shown with experimental evidence that probability can correlate to large distances, and even over indefinite distance, and entanglement has already been done with photons, so the probability of a photon can expand over large distances, and delocalization does this. The probability of measuring a photon can theoretically be as large as light years.

And regardless, that's STILL not the point, I'm trying to figure out what determines the 3-deimnsional probability of measuring a photon before measurement since things like wavelength aren't actually known prior to measurement. There HAS to be parameters for delcalized a photon gets before measurement, because otherwise it's probability would spread out infinitely as there would be nothing to stop it from doing so without parameters, just like how scientists think a singularity is infinitely small because there is no parameter to limit how small it can get after a certain point.

Who said anything about numbers?

When you were referring to Zeus and Unicorns I thought you were meaning to say that not as many people believe in them anymore therefore they are unlikely, even though at one point thousands of people believed in them, at least in Zeus.

.... your logic is weird, man. There are tons of weird wrong things that 99% of the population believes in, as they have throughout history. You start by complaining about numbers and then state a completely odd statement about the number games.

Logic is logic, logic is not weird logic, unless the oral statements can be equal to mathematical statements and "weird" would equal "1" as a coefficient of "logic", at least logically anyway, or you could just accept that how logical something seems is actually relative.

If this is a number game, my friend, you need to go Muslim.

Well at least someone thinks beveling in a religion doesn't impair mental ability, besides the people who are already religious. And what about the Mayans?

There is a precise definition. It was given.

Then state it if it's so precise and it was already stated, because let's just say I don't see it anywhere and that I won't see it if you name a specific post number.

The existence of several (philosophical) interpretations of quantum mechanics is not the same than your claim "there's like 10 variations of quantum mechanics".

So you think Hamiltonian operators and Dirac mechanics and Schrodinger mechanics and Heisenberg mechanics and Quantum Field Theory are philosophies now? I can name more: There's also Bohmian mechanics, some later Bhor mechanics after even discussed how his model was flawed, DeBroglie (which I guess DeBroglie was in the earlier discovery), Einstein even went into it a little bit even though he didn't like the improbability it had, there's string theory, Calabi-Yau mechanics, etc...

And many of these use waves and quantum variations of harmonic oscillators.

I will merely quote an excellent advice that other poster wrote to you:

Except neither you nor him specified what those "random bits" are.

Quantum field theory seems to be the best framework for nature we have. Really quantum field theory is a theory of quantum fields not particles, which are rather a derived notion and quite a special one particular to "flat-like" space-times. Mathematically one often deals with the theory rather formally, but that is okay.

 

Even more abstractly, one school of though is that the fields are not the primary objects, but rather the algebra of observables. This gets mathematically tough very quickly and the framework cannot cope with realistic theories.

Don't those fields have planar-wave solutions though?

Also, I would say right now that "wave-particle-duality" is the best description, but that doesn't mean particles can't have properties of waves or have wave-mechanics describe them. They either are the oscillation itself or they are the whole of an oscillating field.

Not only that, but the only distinction of particles that I have seen so far as that one is a little solid sphere that has mass and spin, I haven't seen anything to suggest they can account for superposition and field cancellation without considering that a particle has oscillatory properties.

I get the same feeling when I meditate, and yet I don't attach any external omnipotent invisible fatherly figure to it.

I don't either, but then again, I'm not religious.

"Science" can't prove the unicorn wrong, or Zeus wrong. Does that mean you're going to Zeus temple tomorrow with a rainbow-colored saddle?

Why should the number of believers determine if something is actually real? And besides, the reason people believe in it is because it can't be proven wrong. If it could, then 99% of the population wouldn't believe in it.

Questionposter,

 

Sure, but the majority don't want to pay for it as it stands today. They might have if two things would have happened. 1- The public could have had time to study the bill before it was rammed through behind closed doors. 2- If the government didn't take it upon itself to penalize it's citizens for not buying a product.

In my arguments on this issue I include alot of other things that I think are legitimate reasons for not liking this form of system, but I think this thing would have had alot more support had those two things been done. On the number one reason, it's the fact that when you see things like this happen in a democracy, 9 times out of 10 they turn out to be shady in one way or another. On the number 2 reason, this whole reform revolves around this mandate, which is against some very core principles that alot of Americans hold. So if number 2 doesn't stand up, then the whole thing gets shot down. I think those are the main two reasons for such opposition to the reform.

If a majority of people don't want to pay for it then they will see what it's like to have a fire-station let your house burn to the ground unless you pay them, which already happened in the early 20th century. Can you even imagine what would happen if police were privatized?

We try to preserve them in controlled form, to retain their genetic material in case it might be necessary, but there is no conservationist effort to let them roam as self-sustaining species.

 

 

 

Indeed this is why humanism has a position against murder, one of the reasons at least. This is why as a humanist I do not oppose the murder of serial killers, rapists, cleptocrats and other people that are more dangerous to humanity than beneficial.

 

 

When I use the term level I use it because I think it is pretty expressive and easy to understand, since you want an explanation I will rephrase the whole idea;

 

We have no reason to try to preserve rocks intact, we have extended this lack of care to weeds and when we ask where to stop not caring I say that the ability to exhibit sentience is enough, in ohter words, we must only worry about sentient beings. Why do we care about sentient beings and not about anything or anyone we do not consider sentient? Because only sentient beings care about their own existence or the existence of their peer, this is a unique value, the capacity for emotion, that makes them more than mere matter, yes, there is no immaterial component to their matter, but there is worth to their existence. The issue is really complex to explain completly and I am having a headache right now but if you need more explanation make me detailed questions and I will answer. And note that the worth of their existence is not an instrumental worth, as the worth of money or works of art, but a worth in relation to itself.

 

 

 

Emergentist science can explain enough about instincts, consciousness and emotions to make a claim, whether it is behaviourist psychology or whether it is ethology... I have not yet started to study ethology because I want first to complete studies in philosophy and I had to stop because I could not advance in my country the way I wanted (I found philosophy to biased here). Consciousness is the effect of writing a code and decodiying so it keeps changing (it involves learning, if we ever invent Artificial Intelligence it would require the ability to learn for it to be trully Artificial Intelligence). I recommend you the book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter, it gives an excellent acount of consciousness and emergentism.

 

 

 

Most biologists are not ethologists... Ethology is a specific field of study in relation to animal behaviour and the internal mental state of animals. The problem of finding internal mental states in someone that is not oneself is already adressed by philosophy (the problem is known as the philosophical zombie) and it explains the existence of solipsism; however we can accept emotions in other people by projecting their behaviour, this tool, our natural empathy, is the same tool that, when analysed, becomes the tool of the ethologist and I have never found confirmation that non-vertebrates exhibit the complex self-worth of vertebrates, that is also the reason why they do not exhibit much creative behaviour.

 

 

 

Emotions are not merely chemicals, that is a materialistic and physicalist way to put it, if you go into materialism or physicalism nothing matters and everything is permitted... However emergentism (that is semi-dualist but, unlike dualism, does not need non-material components for existence) understands that emotions are a complex result of the code that our thinking system is and gives value to things in relation to how much wellfare they seem to give us. It understands that consciousness consists of perceiving the workings of our thinking (that is a sort of code) to further change it (our ability to reflect) and that perception is the alteration of our thinking's code as an answer to our enviroment (or to other objects that may affect our thinking, like drugs).

 

 

 

But we are not the universe and we are not responsible of making the universe static, we are ourselves and we have to look after ourselves and that means looking after humanity itself... We care aboutecology because it has consequences on us, nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

I don't really see much of what your saying in my physics books, which as you know tries to describe reality, and you might as well assume god exists because science doesn't have any evidence to support if "lower level" organisms actually have consciousness or perception or not. There isn't actually a logical component of the universe that says life can only do certain things, and considering that it means we can take to extra step to care about organisms we would consider to be a "lower level" if we want to, even though ironically the universe doesn't actually recognize level, a meteor will wipe out all life on Earth if it's big enough no matter how sentient any life on it is. Furthermore, there is no way to quantify consciousness, therefore we cannot say with certainty that one organism has a greater value of it than another.

Since we can't really say perception and consciousness doesn't exist in things like mosquitoes, which personally I think it easily could even if not in large compared to humans I like to assume every thing that is living has some type of consciousness no matter how minute, and instead look at what they can control of their body and will power, because when you look at it that way you can make a smooth gradient between organisms, there doesn't just have to be some finite point where consciousness cuts off. Can you personally tell the deference between which species have "sentience" and which ones you know for sure don't? Because not even science can.

Also, what if those organisms would have one day evolved into sentient organisms? Then your still destroying a sentient species.

And besides, regardless of if anything is actually sentient, many animals have been tested to feel what appears to be pain. People even thought fish for a long time didn't feel pain, but with further testing, there's even chemical evidence of it because they release endorphins into their blood-stream when injured.

Lets think of a gattaca model. where improvement is not only on intelligence but on physical skill... however with everyone at such level of advancement... Who would take the minor jobs? Well, I hope by then we can assign those menial tasks to machinery becuase it is a way to eliminate class struggle...

If you think Gattaca supported Eugenics you completely misunderstood it in every way shape and form. Your vision of "better" is your on personal opinion, and again, what happens when those machines fail?

Which is part of why it is so strange for people to accept the god proposition as if it were unquestionably true.

 

Strange to you perhaps because you haven't made the psychological connections to religion as other people have. When mono-theists formally pray to god, in my experience, they often describe a feeling of calmness and zen as a way of feeling connected to god. Logically I don't know what the feeling actually arises from, and I don't know if scientists know, so there's room for believing other things.

Then any god is forever outside of reason and making shit up is not an acceptable substitute for science.

I don't think I ever said its a substitute for science, but this is why science can't prove it wrong.

The definition of particle is based in scientific requirements. Particle physicists give a precise definition, which is well-tested in the lab. This is the same definition used by chemists when they claim, officially, that an electron is a particle. There is no reason for which a precise and well-tested definition would be substituted by an imprecise and nonsensical definition as "something that is wave-like".

There obviously isn't a precise definition of a particle if there's like 10 variations of quantum mechanics that all describe how particles act, and there's even a chemist I know that uses quantum wave mechanics of particles for industrial calculations.

The link that you gave about quantum harmonic oscillators do not support your view, but uses the same quantum mechanics of particles that I am alluding to in my corrections to your posts. Maybe you missed this previous reply:

How does it NOT support my view? If anything its empirical evidence that quantum mechanics uses quantum wave mechanics to describe particles.

The quantum harmonic oscillator was not derived to account of the nodal surfaces in atomic orbitals. Not even close!

Ok, AND vector states and the double slit experiment, but scientists think it works well because the nodal surfaces generated by a quantum harmonic oscillator perfectly or nearly perfectly matches where electrons don't seem to show up at all in an atom.

I just finished reading the novels for the Halo franchise a little while ago and I was very intrigued about one of the weapons that the humans have developed. They called it the NOVA bomb, and while we aren't told very much about it, it is basically a cluster of fusion warheads encased in some sort of fictional super-strong material that is able to temporarily contain the nuclear explosions, supposedly increasing its thermonuclear yield a hundredfold. Though I can't for the life of me understand how this would have any effect whatsoever on the power of the bomb. All we really know about its properties and effects comes from the following quote:

 

"This is the prototype NOVA bomb, nine fusion warheads encased in lithium triteride armor. When detonated, it compresses its fissionable material to neutron-star density, boosting the thermonuclear yield a hundredfold. I am Vice Admiral Danforth Whitcomb, temporarily in command of the UNSC military base Reach. To the Covenant uglies that might be listening, you have a few seconds to pray to your damned heathen gods. You all have a nice day in hell..." A heartbeat later Vice Admiral Whitcomb's ploy of slipping the UNSC prototype Nova bomb into Covenant supplies had finally paid off: a star ignited between Joyous Exultation and its moon. Every ship not protected on the dark side of the planet boiled and vaporized in an instant. The atmosphere of the planet wavered as helical spirals of luminescent particles lit both north and south poles, making curtains of blue and green ripple over the globe. As the thermonuclear pressure wave spread and butted against the thermosphere, it heated the air orange, compressed it, until it touched the ground and scorched a quarter of the world. The tiny nearby moon Malhiem cracked and shattered into a billion rocky fragments and clouds of dust. The overpressure force subsided, and three-hundred-kilometer-per-hour winds swept over Joyous Exultation, obliterating cities and whipping tidal waves over its coastlines.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm assuming the idea is that by temporarily containing the initial nine nuclear explosions, all the energy of the combined explosions is released all at the same instant when they finally break free of the armor, as opposed to over the course of several seconds as is the case for normal nuclear warheads. But anyway, given the information provided about this fictional weapon, does anyone know whether there is any truth at all to this idea, ASSUMING that there was some kind of material durable enough to temporarily contain a series of nuclear explosions, which obviously there isn't, but just assume that there was. Or is it just pure nonsense?

There's often questions about sci-fi stuff. But if you had some kind of casing, wouldn't the energy just radiate through that if the explosions happened pre-hand? Why not just detonate all of it at the same time without the casing? If you had a material that like, broke thermal dynamics and was incapable of absorbing thermal energy, then you could store all that energy inside it without losing any of it, otherwise even if it doesn't deteriorate from the over 5000 degrees of heat, energy will still transfer through it to the outside, not only that but maybe some gamma rays would escape as gamma rays are very small.

I had a separate topic at one point for using degenerate matter to store massive amounts of energy, but so far the research is inconclusive and you might need to constantly expend energy to keep matter in a degenerate state.

In short, it's improbable a bomb like that could be made. Usually sci-fi stories create an idea first, usually games don't spend a bunch of money to hire a scientist just to create futuristic bomb.

No argument here.

 

 

 

Science is a methodology to describe reality. It's the closest thing we have to describing reality without bias. It's not "meant" or "not meant" anything. It's a methodology.

 

When we try to describe reality without bias, we don't find God. When we try to describe God's existence without bias and in a way we can actually agree exists outside of people's heads, we fail. Evidence can't exist "just for those people", it must exist for everyone, otherwise it's subjective and biased.

 

Science is a methodology to get rid of as much bias as possible. When we use this methodology, we don't find any evidence for a god.

 

What does that mean?

No, science is a methodology to describe our observations, not reality, that is why god is separate from it, because we cannot observe and test god regardless of if it exists in reality. We can't even prove black holes because we cannot observe them, same with individual quarks.

As an aside, Questionposter, a bit of friendly advice.

 

Please stop just grabbing tid bits of information and sticking them into discussions that are not related. It's if you're doing cursory glances at wikipedia, not bothering to understand what the terminology means, and whacking it into discussions. It's very frustrating for people trying to answer you're questions, because you're muddling things up and derailing threads, through people trying to explain to you what the terminology means, and why it's not related. Stick to short, succinct questions, understand the answer, then move on to something else, rather than jumbling stuff up. Sorry if that comes across as patronizing, that's not my intention.

What terminology are you talking about specifically? Heisenberg's and Schrodinger's math DO achieve the same experimental results if that's what you mean. And was I wrong to say a a quantum harmonic oscillator was derived from a classical harmonic oscillator to account of the nodal surfaces in atomic orbitals?

I agree with the importance of diveristy, that is the same point I made on an essay against the assumption that "social darwinism" is darwinism correctly interpreted... But the idea that we would be animals because we accepted universal darwinism is mistaken... Animals do not seem to bow down to mystical forces, that is what pre-civilized humans and what fundamentalists do, so it is a human trait... Now we are not considering evolution a mystical force either, we are considering its worth from undertsanding of it... Eugenics does not need to say "sterilize this person" or "avoid those two from mating", eugenics can say "modify that zygote so their children does not has that gene and that gene and that other gene"... Eugenics could even be applied to humans to create transgenic humans... But it is indeed risky so we better not make laws regulating it until we learn better.

I suppose it would be less extreme to try and modify a zygote, but other than that there actually isn't a real reason other than "I think it would be best", it's just a personal opinion, life would go on either way. By why should we judge so many people along those lines anyway? They're already working on research for mentally handicapped people anyway.

Even with just zygotes, it is still jsut a forced judgement of a personal view of what's "better". Let's say we come up with a breakthrough and can genetically modify everyone to be a mathematical super-genius. But, what will we have to sacrifice to make it that way? Imagination, social skills, physical strength, the things that make a working society work, because the energy to support a more complex brain that can do those processes will have to come from somewhere and that somewhere could easily be other parts of the brain. What? Make people's brains bigger? What will require the deformation of people's skulls putting them off balance, and to support a big of enough brain to make that big of a difference, you also need more energy and oxygen, and that would come from your muscles and lung modification which there are limits to, which would make us dependent on machines for many physical tasks. What? Make a machine that can give us energy? Well in both those scenarios, what happens when machines fail?

Mind control has not been implied here as far as i know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see, preemptive thinking, lol

 

 

 

Mind control has not been implied here as far as i know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see, preemptive thinking, lol

The idea of god is slippery to say the least but could our entire biosphere be likened to a colonial organism that is self aware in the way that ants and or termites colonies are aware?

 

Would such a super organism qualify as being a god?

 

The Earths biosphere could be alive and even aware in it's own way and trying to control the environment much like our bodies mechanisms control the conditions inside our bodies.

 

Quite possibly we are the brain of the organism but we are unaware of the over mind which only seeks to live and doesn't care who dies or suffers individually. It could communicate and control it's various parts through viruses and or feed back loops it controls but has no more conscious thoughts than our liver does...

 

Or maybe we are a cancer that developed in this organism and we are detrimental to it's existence..

How is the "influence" actually carried out by a virus?

How is this giant organism telling the viruses how to influence us considering viruses aren't even living things?

But we understand the Doppler shift.

Which only applies for measuring a photon.

Why would it? It still has a wavelength.

No, if it's wavelength was actually "known", it shouldn't have the properties it has while its unmeasured. It's possible we more likely know just a range of possible energies.

When the hell did entanglement enter into this? There has been no mention of it at all, much less any discussion of how you could possibly entangle the "localization" of a photon.

Because localization works the same way, it's about a correlation. If a photon is more localized, it's probability evolves over smaller 3 dimensional coordinates than a non-localized photon, which is what I'm asking about.

And you still have not explained your reasoning behind an infinite-extent probability implying being measured instantaneously. Why do you think this is true?

I've explained it more than once, this is why I brought entanglement up. An infinitely delocalized photon would have a probability that would extend to infinity, and thus it would be measured instantaneously after it's creation because it's probability would extend to many many things that would be able to measure it. But since photons don't do that, there has to be parameters for how localized they are. Entanglement could theoretically do this ame thing. If you separated entangled particles by infinite distance, their dis-entanglement would still happen instantaneously because thei'r probability would correlate to determined states.

What has to see what I said with your questions?

 

 

 

Evidently no.

 

 

 

That your previous statement about duality and harmonic oscillators was (sorry) nonsense:

 

 

 

 

For emphasizing that there is not mystery...

 

 

 

 

It is a pure question of logic, physics, and math. A quantum particle is... a particle and not a wave. A cat is a cat and not an apple.

The definition of a particle can be something that is wave-like, the only evidence you have provided are traits of particles that are used by quantum wave mechanics. Furthermore the link shows that harmonic oscillator mechanics are used in quantum mechanics and originate from classical wave mechanics.

By producing a method to have checks and balances and make the bias as small and as insignificant as possible.

 

It's called the scientific method, and most of the time - it works.

That is experimental evidence for reproducible results, which obviously god isn't.

"Science" is a methodology meant to describe our reality. It's not meant to separate anything other than things outside reality.

Science itself is not a description of reality, it is logical sequence of our understanding of our observations based on other observations. For example. a photon becomes emitted from an atom, then it hits your retina at which point it is absorbed and destroyed, then an electrical signal get's sent down your cells to your brain where your consciousness perceives the signal as a point of a location, your not actually observation the photon, your observation the translation of an electrical signal.

Furthermore, science is meant to deal only with speculation like religion. I didn't mean it is meant to separate religion, it just is a separate thing from religion and is not meant to interfere with it.

Maybe not carcinogenic but how about this?

 

http://berkeley.edu/...07/05_ddt.shtml

There's an easy solution to this: Thoroughly wash and/or peel non-organic fruits and vegetables.

Everybody,

 

I would also like to introduce another angle on this "brokeness" concept, that I was waiting for someone else to introduce, and surprisingly, no one has.

 

There seems to be an equating of wisdom, with knowing the difference between good and evil, and this, as well, associated with the "fall of man". The serpent in the Garden and the tree of knowledge and Adam "seeing his own nakedness" and such. The myth or idea is not foriegn to religions and traditions around the world. This "separateness" from God, that consciouness seems to demand. The constant theme of nature being somehow "other than" man. Something that Man can fight or join forces with, depending on his or her thoughts and actions.

 

"Broken" thusly can mean something we are already that we need to fix. Or something we have done to ourselves or others, that we should not have.

 

I know Inow does not hold much value in 100 and 200 year old thoughts that have been so studied and improved upon and refined or debunked enough as to not be currently useful, but I think it appropriate, at least in a figurative way, to bring up the Id, ego and superego again in this context. Our "natural" self, the one that has urge to sex and pleasure, is somewhat at odds with the rules and authority that guide our conscience. These rules are something that seem to have "outside" sources (parents, laws, codes, religions, bosses or kings). But we can listen to our conscience, when there is no one else around, to know or care what we think or do.

 

We can "do the right thing", even when the whole world (or a large portion of it) is apparently against us.

 

Where we summon this strength from, is an interesting question. Delusion and "brokeness"? Or a from a real and evident source?

 

Regards, TAR2

In truth I think it is more of a relative term.

Recent research has shown that virus's might be the most numerous creatures on the planet in both mass and numbers, in fact the number of virus particles is so huge that it might very well be impossible to know what all of them do. I have no doubt that if the Gaea hypothesis has any reality to it at all the ways the super organism influences the earth would be huge and the virus wouldn't be something our immune system would see as an invader since it is part of us.

How does having a virus in your system logically allow mind control?

I'm not sure how this applies to this idea.

In case you tried to use that to explain communication and interaction.