In an example of colossal stupidity, Iraqi officials have called for the killing of the three wild boars in the Baghdad zoo to protect the country against swine flu. This comes on the heals of the Egyptian government moving to kill every pig in the country despite the lack of any evidence that it would help prevent the virus, which passes from human to human.
The Iraqis seem to blame the eating of pork, an emerging view among some Muslim clerics. Regional health minister Abdul Rahman Osman said “It is also possible the disease could be spread by eating pork, so we banned hunting wild boars.”
In the meantime, the Egyptian plan to kill every pigs in the country adopts an almost biblical approach to health care. Various groups have ridiculed the measure as unconnected to any scientific basis.
For the full story, click here.
This is but one more example of why our values and our style of democracy, often based on sound scientific principles and critical thinking, will never ‘work’ in the Muslim world.
Boy I hope a strain of the once feared Honk Kong flu doesn’t ever reach the shores of an Islamic Country. What’s next a flotilla aimed at Hong Kong?
what a waste of good BBQ.
FFLEO:
I reject the argument that people with dark skin dont want democracy, I say we invade Egypt to protect against the extinction of Sus domestica and while we are it we can deliver democracy to the masses.
Bron,
Per M72′s thoughts, shouldn’t we invade Hong Cong as a preemptive strike to prevent a HG flu outbreak, just in case, because it might resurface in a few millennia–one can never be too careful, doncha know.
Oh, and while are at that we can spread democracy and the word of god to them heathens too, those that we do not annihilate.
FFLEO:
It would be easier to annihilate everyone and let God sort it out. Then we wouldnt have to worry about spreading democracy or religion. And the bonus is no more foreign entanglements.
Jesus, that was simple, I wonder why the state department hasnt called?
Now where could they have learned that killing solves problems?
Bron sayed,
“Jesus, that was simple, I wonder why the state department hasnt called?”
_____________
Cause Haliburtion caint make no money that way, well at least not as profitably so, since there must be “some” infrastructure remaining with which to work; correct, from an engineering standpoint?.
As I’ve sated previously on many occasiona, AND per Ron White,
“You can’t fix ‘Stupid’, “…
There’s a lot of wisdom there, believe me…
Now Messpo727272,
Now you are causing unnecessary worry for the United Kingdom. Until what was it 1999, they had control over Hong Kong. I do believe that the Flotilla wold have to be aimed, pert near every direction around the Planet Earth.
Then that would get us into another Justification to put Dick Cheney back in the WhiteHouse to figure out how we could attack from three fronts rather than just the two. See, you statement unintended would cause other consequences that have not been thought of. Thank Goodness you are not in the Department of Defense. Oh brother.
Have you ever notice since 1947, since they changed the name to the Department of Defense from the Department of War, we have not won a War?
I am only kidding, I would say Joshin ya, but I am afraid someone would take umbrage.
Anon:
“Have you ever notice since 1947, since they changed the name to the Department of Defense from the Department of War, we have not won a War?”
very good point, althought didnt we “win” in Panama and Yugoslavia?
FFLEO:
I advise use of Neutron Bomb dosent hurt infrastructure, so there would be no need for Haliburton or KBR.
It’s just all falling into place.
Hillary call me!
Hummm, do you think that they could freeze it and send the meat products here. I am in the mood for some extra thick slabbed bacon. I understand, though I have never tried it, wild boar is good and lean. Just a thought to get PETA going. People Eating Tasty Animals.
M72727272… Are you one of them clearvoyants? I knowed them strang of 72’s meant you was a Sighkeek or a numberolagist, palm reader, tearout card reader, or sumpin’ ‘cause you predicted this outbreak of the dreaded Hung Kung Flew.
Swine Flu: China Quarantines 300 In Hong Kong Hotel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/swine-flu-china-quarantin_n_194684.html
Some nearby nation is about to get a good deal on a very large shipment of some very cheap pork, followed by a small famine in Egypt and wherever else they slaughter all the pigs.
Unless, of course, they just chuck all the pigs into a rotting pile, eventually leading to an epidemic of something nastier than flu.
Either way, this plan cannot possibly go wrong.
Jonathan – you’re forgetting what Rummy said. Freedom is messy. In this case, really messy.
these over the top responses to H1N1 are the physical responses that mirror the “illegal immigrants as swine flu mules to infect USA” arguments spewed on wingnut radio. Right now people are killing off pigs. . .wonder when the wingnuts will start using this as an excuse to kill suspected illegal immigrants?
Hello to all, I have returned as my spring lamb from Mespo727272 and my fatted calf with butter from Mike Spindell are expended. It was a propitious act of fate that I caught wind of this delicious occurrence. My work with Osiris to convince the Egyptians to convert to Christianity must have come to fruition, all of those pigs sacrificed to your humble servant. I am in heaven (well metaphorically speaking) and cannot wait for my sumptuous feast. I take this as a sign from the “Boss” that Egypt is on the fast track to Christianity. Hopefully they will remember the Memphis Pit Barbecue sauce.
that meat looks pretty gnarly to me.
the BBQ feral pig i tasted definitely was. ugh. they are plentiful here with herds numbering 60 and more.
this word just came to me, al-lliv-iirus.
Former Federal LEO:
“M72727272… Are you one of them clearvoyants?”
**************
You are only now coming to understand the power of the Grand Poobah. Your analysis of the number string was too close to the truth. Mystic numbers grant me the power of 72 wishes. I now wish that you understand too. See the magic portal and the significance of “7″ and “2.”
http://www.virtuescience.com/72.html
You must choose the correct correlation. Choose wisely.
M72,
“The Great Rhombicuboctahedron is an Archimedean Solid with 72 Edges”
________
I, of course, knew that already, especially the big R word (clears throat).
The Internet is such a boon to knowledge. I am surrounded in my home library by 6 bookcases with several hundred books; however, some of that information is available in a few seconds through my satellite Internet connection. I will always be a bibliophile, although this virtual online library is phenomenal.
Thanks for the link; I do like numbers.
Messpon727272.
I guess the year 72 AD was not good for you if you were Antiochus IV.
Because in the year 72 AD Antiochus IV of Syria was deposed by Vespasian. Pray tell.
Anon.
Darn you Anon, you’ve solved the mystery of the first “72″ since Vespasian is my favorite Roman Emperor and the year 72AD marked his zenith. Tacitus recounts that he was the first and only Emperor to improve as a person after he assumed the purple. More importantly he was of common birth (an equestrian but son of a tax collector)and remained unaffected even as he wielded the power of the Empire to rebuild it after the tumultuous “Year of the Four Caesars.” He was a benefactor of the visual arts as well as writers and historians, though he certainly knew little about their craft. He was the builder of the Flavian Amphitheater, now called the Roman Coliseum. He caused a minor scandal by revealing to the Roman populace that he removed his boots after riding with his own hands. He was, in essence,the first “American Rags to Riches Story.”
But you know Anon, there are three sets of “72s.” Wonder if wiki can shed light on the second one?
Hail Agapetus II. Welcome back to the realm of the earth-bound. I am awaiting more revelations about god, man, and menus. Please favor us with a word or two.
Mike Appleton (and any others who want to chime in)
OFF TOPIC: 2nd Amendment and local laws
I’m between the room and the bar, but this quickie is for you Mike as your Florida experience is germane.
There was a guy arguing in the bar earlier about the 2nd Amendment and he brought up a topic that I was unaware of because I didn’t think a state would be so stupid as to enact something this insane. I was not a party to the conversation but they were drunks of the very loud variety. It got me and the Angel of Mercy talking at our table and we agreed more input is better.
The “No Retreat” laws that allow gun owners to shoot if they feel their life is in danger (no problem so far) but that right extends (here comes the crazy part) beyond the home/property and INTO PUBLIC PLACES. The guy who brought it up had said he lives near Sarasota. I’ve never lived in an afflicted jurisdiction, but I’d sure like to hear the opine of one who does.
This sounds like an invitation to murder to me. Self-defense and the right to use deadly force therein should stop at the borders as a matter of common sense in my book. Otherwise, by definition, it’s a right of offense.
Oh Grand Poobah,
I bow before your genius! I am so glad your considerable powers are only used for good. Although I must confess you need not practice any arts of obfuscation on my behalf; so much of what you discuss is way over my head but I know it’s good (especially when I take the time to look things up!)
Seriously Mespo727272 you really are amazingly intelligent, and I’m guessing only JT, Buddha, Patty C., the Mike’s A&S, Bob esq. and MASkeptic and maybe a few others can keep up at your level.
I mean this sincerely – I enjoy reading your posts!
Oops!!!
I forgot Rafflaw he could keep up!
I forgot: No more lists. No more lists. No More Lists!!!
Buddha,
Consider that Florida is a Drip Bush state. Ok former Bush, the guy Jeb lost to Crist who was a Republican that ran as a Democrat and beat him. This was when Jeb was being Courted as the III. It served as a source of fine humuality for the Bush Dynasty.
I know in Michigan that if someone trys to jack your car with you in it. Its open season, cap em, strap em to the gurney and send em home with roses (optional of course).
Now in Texas be bold enough to break in, you can be worm fodder quickly even if you are running away. It does not matter. B&E and you could be DOA, the legislature cleaned up the part about having to drag em back onto your property and go “oh yeah the got shot right here, see the body there, nod, nod, wink, wink.”
So to answer your question about Florida. Do some drunk dialing, they may not appreciate it, but you’ll feel much better. Better to give a resentment than get one. Reach out and touch someone tonight, make it special.
So you do know what the definition of Rodeo Sex is?
You mount your significant other from behind, grab around the belly and wisper in her ear ” Your Sister likes it like this, then see if you can hold on for 8 seonds.”
In conclusion, I don’t know about Florida. Have a good time.
Buddha,
I’m glad you popped in; (of course I can’t help you with your question as I have no legal background) but I do want to compliment you on your earlier posts today-if that is you writing while under the influence you too are so amazingly impressive. As to the para-sailing incident, any pictures!
CEJ:
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” Seriously, thank you for the sentiments, misplaced though they may be. I find we are all quite intelligent on various topics on this blog. You can see I enjoy history and literature, but would shrink in abject embarrassment if forced into Bron’s scientific world, or MIke S.’s paradoxical world of human motivation and aberration. FFLeo could run rings around me in his arena at the federal courthouse, and I think I would send an associate if I had to argue law with Buddha, Anon., rafflaw, Vince Treachy, Mike Appleton, or Bob,Esq. Think I ‘d take on Patty C in debate over medicine? Ever? (I know I ‘m leaving some other worthy bloggers out, but this old memory is the worse for wear.) Everyone contributes so much to these discussions, yourself included, that rendering a compliment to any one really is a compliment to us all. We owe a large debt to our host for providing this forum, and putting up with our eccentricities day after day. Can you imagine posting on daily basis just to see what others have to say while still teaching, lecturing, fathering, husbanding, and raising the nation’s awareness of the law that keeps them free on a near nightly basis? I like praise as well as the next guy, but it really should go to a more worthy candidate. That said, it in no way diminishes my appreciation for your kind words.
Little query to Patty C:
Are you aware of any medical literature linking so-called “factory farming” to increased incidents of animal borne viruses which can be transmitted to humans?
Buddha,
The answer is found here, HELL YEAH, SHOOT EM AND SHOOT EM DEAD:
Florida Expands Right to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
New York Times Published: April 27, 2005 – MIAMI, April 26 – Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill on Tuesday giving Florida citizens more leeway to use deadly force in their homes and in public, a move that gun-control groups and several urban police chiefs warned would give rise to needless deaths.
The measure, known as the “stand your ground” bill, lets people use guns or other deadly force to defend themselves in public places without first trying to escape.
Floridians already had the right to defend themselves against home intruders under what is known as the castle doctrine, but until now, they could not do so in public.
LINK:
http://www.cephas-library.com/nwo/nwo_jeb_bush_new_gun_law_about_votes.html
I really disagree with this. This is like giving a robber your money so he cant steel it, or letting your prisoner go, so he cant escape. So there thinking, oh, lets just kill them so they cant get the virus???? NO!!!!!! Its all just wrong.
TJ,
I agree with your analogy. But remember we had Bush and Cheney in the WhiteHouse for 8 years and nobody did nuttin. I am only kidding.
Mespo:
CEJ is right, you are one of the, if not, most fun to read on this site. I believe he is referencing your depth of knoweledge and how you bring in germain comments from history and literature to underline your points and back up your arguments.
I am often amazed at some quote you bring to the table. At first I thought you were just doing a google search, but then realized you would have had to read the work to know the author and the content of the text. It is always a treat to read your posts.
Bron98,
Teacher Pets, ah want to be Teachers pet. You do need to bring an Apple to the desk though.
SUCK UP.
No you are correct, there are a lot of brilliant people on this list. No all shine at the same time which I do believe that Messpo727272 is saying with humility.
The analogy I like to use is a car. The car needs to be in good working condition to run smoothly. You may not have all spark plugs running at the same time and sometimes you are going to have misfires. The list is endless. But I think you get my point.
The value of a good secretary exceeds the value of an attorney by leaps and bounds. I got through College on my good looks or maybe my photographic memory. Which believe it or not we all have that capability.
Anon:
I am not being graded so I cannot be a suck up. Actually if I had been a suck up in college I would have done a little better. The real suck-ups usually got at least one letter grade better based on my observations of test scores. And in fact in once instance during my last semester I was taking prestressed/post tensioned concrete design and just wanted to get out, I was tired. I told the professor I just wanted a C and would be happy. Well I ended up working hard and actually doing some good work, I reviewed it a few years later and was surprised by how good it actually was for an undergraduate (I say that objectively because enough years had passed to diminish any emotional attachment I may have had to the work). Well the professor gave me a C and he made a point to surrupticiously show me his grade book, I had the highest marks in the class. It was a very good lesson and worth the price of tuition for that year.
The regulars are all fun to read and are all very thought provoking. But I single Mespo out because he weaves the classics into his work. My education is incomplete in that regard and I use his references as a syllabus if you will.
Everyone here is fun to read, the 2 Mikes, Buddha, Raf, RCampbell, FFLEO, Bobesq, Vince, AY and the rest.
It is always educational. In fact I have noticed that I am thinking more and in a critical manor on a whole host of topics. I am realizing why you guys on the left think that republicans are not very intellectual, because they aren’t. I also like objectivism and I am starting to see that they don’t expand enough on some ideas either. They get to a point and they quit and they don’t go beyond. Sometimes that is OK because you have to begin with something, but sometimes the something is not the beginning. Exploring ideas and asking questions of people on this site is helping me get to the beginning.
mespo727272: Not Patty but this is interesting and relates somewhat to your query about the Swine flu:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/swineflufarm/
lottakatz:
That was interesting. I have no expertise in biology, but if I did I would want to be involved in virology. These loose strands of DNA encapsulated by proteins walk the thin edge between animate and inanimate. I have heard viruses may be the catalyst of life, and their total dependence on but destructive influence upon other life forms is one of the great mysteries.
CEJ,
All photo evidence was burned or rendered digitally inert to protect the innocent . . . that being the viewer.
Mespo:
it is my contention that viruses are actually the impetus for certain evolutionary changes, especially ones that defy logic. For example a Hyrax is the cousin of an Elephant. So actually they may not be a destructive force. They easily insinuate themselves into animal DNA and who knows what changes may have taken place in various species over eons.
Bron68:
Funny that God may come in the form of the tobacco mosaic virus. Curious indeed.
Bron,
Things do not “defy logic”, they merely fail to fit in our standing logical framework. Everything can be explained even if it has elements that cannot be proven or unless you are describing pre-big bang conditions where physics as we know them do not apply. That being said, sure, the world really belongs to viruses and bacteria. Given the mechanisms of a virus, it seems perfectly possible that they impact evolution and the flu is a perfect example. The virus attacks the body. X% of the infected population dies, Y% gets ill but recovers and in the process develops anti-bodies, Z% never gets ill. That’s natural selection at work. And surely the virus mechanism can cause mutation as well. What is a wart but a viral mutation? As are certain cancers?
Yep, this is OUR planet . . . in our imaginations only.
We’re just high level parasites. The very small rule us all. And could kill us all in a shockingly short span of time. Sleep tight knowing we are entering the age of garage genetics. 
Buddha:
“Everything can be explained even if it has elements that cannot be proven or unless you are describing pre-big bang conditions where physics as we know them do not apply”
**************
How about explaining “jumbo shrimp” then?
mespo,
Two words.
Drunk coonasses.
The conversation went something like this . . .
“I say there Fontaneux, those are some might-tee fine shrips ya’ll got ‘dere. How much for da big ‘uns?”
“Well Mr. Robideaux, these are a special shrimps. I had to go purt near to Mexifornia to catch these critters! Dey destroyed two nets and ate a deckhand a’fore we got ‘em onta da boat.”
“Do tell!”
“Yeah man! Dey pulled that LaFleur boy down to the deck and had him stripped to da bone before we could get him. Mean critters! Make a gator run to momma. These are dem jumbo shrimp and I’s got to charge a little extry! You know, for Mrs. LaFleur.”
And thus another marketing oxymoron was born.
Buddha,
Your so silly; but smart move never leave a trail!
mespo727272
1, May 5, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Buddha:
“Everything can be explained even if it has elements that cannot be proven or unless you are describing pre-big bang conditions where physics as we know them do not apply”
**************
How about explaining “jumbo shrimp” then?
Uh, Buddha dreaming maybe? The thing I like about the concept of reality being the dream of Buddha is that physics as we know them acknowledges that physics (what we have codified as the physical laws) as we know them (in the macro state) completely breaks down at the particle state. You know the drill, the cat is both dead and alive until an observer determines what state the particles are in by collapsing the wave-state through the act of observing. In fact, until you open the box and determine what’s in it (and if Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle were uniformly applied at every step of determinination,) anything you want could be in it if you weren’t pre-disposed to it being a cat by someone else telling you that it was. If there isn’t an observer, there’s no cat, shrimp, boat, bayou, or Cajun hot sauce for dipping. It’s all Buddhas dream.
The universe is a magical place and that’s not even considering the multitude of universes’ and dimensions in an infinite space. I’m as willing to credit a really hungry bayou fisherman wanting really big shrimp as evolution for their existence once I start thinking about such stuff. Unfortunately, whatever latitude I had to change my universe evaporated somewhere around the checkout lane at the store yesterday so now that I’ve made myself hungry considering jumbo shrimp I’m stuck with some tuna salad leftover in the fridge.
And also Mespho and Bron, based on my limited reading in the subject you’re right about virology being a new frontier in evolutionary biology. Micro-biology is the stuff of the ghods.
Buddha:
LOL!!!
mespo727272 1, May 2, 2009 at 12:30 am
Little query to Patty C:
Are you aware of any medical literature linking so-called “factory farming” to increased incidents of animal borne viruses which can be transmitted to humans?
————–
Forgive me, mespo – I didn’t see your query until just now and cannot do it justice at the moment, regretfully. I just blew a gasket due to an explosion of neurons from reading another post and then succeeded in dropping my tedious response by jumping from article to article for links. My fault, as I know better.
Anyhow, to answer you – yes and no. Public Health officials, worldwide, have been ‘on it’ for years. A quick search produced 173 documents which I have yet to go through.
What’s interesting to me, with this outbreak, is the calculated percentage of incidences by population size, which puts Mexico highest, Canada second, and the US, ‘in the middle’
- literally.
And, the only place, so far, where recent infection with H1N1 in pigs, has been confirmed is in Canada, I believe.
How about that?
This should keep you occupied – tonight …
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/440763
From Emerging Infectious Diseases > Research
Serologic Evidence of H1 Swine Influenza Virus Infection in Swine Farm Residents and Employees
Christopher W. Olsen, Lynnette Brammer, Bernard C. Easterday, Nancy Arden, Ermias Belay, Inger Baker, and Nancy J. Cox
Authors and Disclosures
Published: 09/20/2002
Physician Rating:
( 0 Votes )
Rate This Article:
Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
We evaluated seropositivity to swine and human H1 influenza viruses in 74 swine farm owners, employees, their family members, and veterinarians in rural south-central Wisconsin, compared with 114 urban Milwaukee, Wisconsin, residents. The number of swine farm participants with positive serum hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) antibody titers ≥40 to swine influenza viruses (17/74) was significantly higher (p<0.001) than the number of seropositive urban control samples (1/114). The geometric mean serum HI antibody titers to swine influenza viruses were also significantly higher (p<0.001) among the farm participants. Swine virus seropositivity was significantly (p<0.05) associated with being a farm owner or a farm family member, living on a farm, or entering the swine barn ≥4 days/week. Because pigs can play a role in generating genetically novel influenza viruses, swine farmers may represent an important sentinel population to evaluate the emergence of new pandemic influenza viruses.
—–
And, maybe this, from 2006.
* Confined Animal Feeding Operations
as Amplifiers of Influenza ROBERTO A. SAENZ1, HERBERT W. HETHCOTE2, and GREGORY C. GRAY3 1Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 2Department of Mathematics, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 3Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Abstract Influenza pandemics occur when a novel influenza strain, often of animal origin, becomes transmissible between humans. Domestic animal species such as poultry or swine in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) could serve as local amplifiers for such a new strain of influenza. A mathematical model is used to examine the transmission dynamics of a new influenza virus among three sequentially linked populations: the CAFO species, the CAFO workers (the bridging population), and the rest of the local human population. Using parameters based on swine data, simulations showed that when CAFO workers comprised 15-45% of the community, human influenza cases increased by 42-86%. Successful vaccination of at least 50% of CAFO workers cancelled the amplification. A human influenza epidemic due to a new virus could be locally amplified by the presence of confined animal feeding operations in the community. Thus vaccination of CAFO workers would be an effective use of a pandemic vaccine.
Keywords Influenza in birds; Influenza A virus; Swine; Zoonoses; Communicable diseases; Models; Theoretical Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006 ; 6(4): 338–346. H-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Thanks Patty C. I am on the case tonight after spending the entire day in an arbitration over virtual accounting software. My head is spinning and I can use some data I can understand.
Patty C:
“Using parameters based on swine data, simulations showed that when CAFO workers comprised 15-45% of the community, human influenza cases increased by 42-86%. Successful vaccination of at least 50% of CAFO workers cancelled the amplification. A human influenza epidemic due to a new virus could be locally amplified by the presence of confined animal feeding operations in the community. Thus vaccination of CAFO workers would be an effective use of a pandemic vaccine.”
*************
At first blush, this looks significant to me.
Mespo727272 and Patty C,
This is a law site, lol. But this is interesting stuff. I wish I could digest the significance of it all.
AY:
“I wish I could digest the significance of it all.”
**********
My take on it is that our greed and love of filthy lucre is killing the most vulnerable among us. So what else is new?
BTW we need to get you a more descriptive moniker and a really cool avatar. See Mr. Plow, supra.
AY,
To get an avatar, either 1) register as a WordPress user or 2) go to http://www.gravatar.com
It’s really a matter of choice as gravatar is WordPress’ default avatar provider.
And Patty!
You of all people should have a natty avatar. Might I suggest a picture of either Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman or Julia Child.
That could be the Terrible Ale speaking (10.5%).
lottakatz,
May I suggest the following reading:
The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot (available in paperback from Amazon)
also see this article
Spirituality and Science: The Holographic Universe
By Michael Talbot
at http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Holographic_Universe/id/5864
BIL,
Right, the linked particles experiment! Wow, I have that book but haven’t as yet read it. I picked up a used library copy (HB’s $0.50 at the library and for that kind of money any interesting book jacket blurb is reason to buy the book.) and I put it on one of my many stacks of books I’m going to get to. Frankly, stacks that I forget what books are contained therein until I start looking for something to read and grab whatever is on top or catches my eye.
That you kicked the 4 remaining functioning neurons responsible for my mental data retrieval into gear (I knew that book sounded familiar) just sent me on a hunt and I found it. Thank you! I will take your recommendation to heart and start it forthwith. Thanks for the link too.
I just read an article a couple of days ago about the current proposition of a biocentric theory of the universe that resonates with the article you linked:
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos/?searchterm=biocentric%20universe
Just to tmake a stab at staying on topic:
Afghanistan’s Lone Pig Quarantined for Swine Flu
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/05/06/afghanistans-lone-pig-quarantined-for-swine-flu/
Newsweek’s cover story: Fear & the Flu by Laurie Garrett. How one virus spread from pigs and birds to humans.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195692
This week’s episode of PBS’s “Secrets of the Dead” discusses the source & spread of 1918 killer (30 million) flu epidemic.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/zhomepage/preview-of-killer-flu
Actually 1918 “Killer Flu” left ~40 million people dead!
lottkatz:
Interesting article on the physics. But IMHO consciousness is a means to interpreting the physical world. The natural world does exist outside of our perceptions and we use our senses to understand the world/universe.
The fact that life exists is either the result of a creator or it is the result of the fact that it exists because it has to based on the natural order of things. Life is a result of the physical laws of the universe, not the other way around. Life exists because of the way our universe functions. We are able to understand our universe because of the way it functions. Granted there are some things we do not understand but the Greeks reached some conclusions about the natural world that took 2 or 3 thousand years to set right.
Our observations do not cause events in the natural world. We can observe events such as sub-atomic particles smashing each other but we do cause it (unless of course we accelerate them for experimental purposes) and we do not cause the release of energy from these collisions by our observations.
We do not create gravity by our observations, we use our senses to explore and discover the natural laws that make up our universe.
One final thought – we are conscious of self because of the natural world and the stimulus from our senses. The natural world creates the individual, the individual does not create the natural world. With that being said we as humans are able to control our environment using our understanding of the natural world and its laws such as gravity (one near and dear to my heart as a structural engineer as that is the force I must counteract on a daily basis) to create our habitat.
Aren’t human beings magnificent creatures, nothing is beyond our abilities or understanding. Just give us enough time and we can figure it out or create it.
“but we do NOT cause it (unless of course we accelerate them for experimental purposes) and we do not cause the release of energy from these collisions by our observations.”
proof read malfunction.
Bron,
You really need to read Heisenberg. You’re thinking like a Newtonian and an Objectivist. This is a quantum mechanics issue.
http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html
Observation does indeed impact outcome.
This in no way degrades the strange wonder of consciousness, but rather tells us that the universe is a much stranger and less anthropomorphic place than we imagine. But your assertions “The natural world does exist outside of our perceptions and we use our senses to understand the world/universe.
The fact that life exists is either the result of a creator or it is the result of the fact that it exists because it has to based on the natural order of things. Life is a result of the physical laws of the universe, not the other way around. Life exists because of the way our universe functions. We are able to understand our universe because of the way it functions. Granted there are some things we do not understand but the Greeks reached some conclusions about the natural world that took 2 or 3 thousand years to set right.” are flawed.
1) The natural world exists whether or not our consciousness exists to define it. Example: My grandfather is dead. The natural world no longer exists for him in the sense of consciousness. But I know he lived in the natural world. I saw him when he was alive. But what about before I was alive? Your implication is that he could not have existed without me to observe him in the natural world. This is patently untrue. I have evidence. If the existence of my father isn’t enough evidence nor my personal observation of the man, I’ve been to Hiroshima. I’ve seen what the bomb my grandfather helped deliver did to the city. He most certainly existed in the natural world before I could observe him. The question is did my observation of him (and the inverse relation) change reality. The answer is yes. Neither of us would have been the same without the others influence (and I mean that in the barest observational terms, much less direct interaction).
You’re an engineer, which by training means you have a very clear cut view of cause and effect. That’s all well and good until you look at the totality of the universe, the atomic and the subatomic, and you’ll find that the lines between cause and effect are not so clear cut in the quantum. That they appear so to us in the atomic, or rather marco-atomic, world is a function of our psychology. We humans like completeness and linear logics by nature. It’s what kept us banging the rocks together until we figured out how to make tools and consequently civilization as we know it. But since the randomness you rebel against is built into the very nature of the quantum and the macro-atomic world is built upon the quantum, does it not follow that cause and effect’s blurring under Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle translates “up” in scale? It is not inconsistent that if it does. You are stuck in Schrödinger’s trap. He and Heisenberg were competitors and not really friendly ones. To understand why, you need to know how science got the wave/particle dichotomy. It comes from the competition between Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s wave mechanics to determine the best model for explaining electron behavior. Schrödinger thought that his wave interpretation was best because it relied upon established equations and accepted concepts of energy as a wave and was essentially a visual standard working from the basis of traditional Newtonian optics and particle theory. Heisenberg relied upon more complex math, but considered electrons as particles with quantum properties, essentially a causal standard based in the “new” math of relativity. This conflict eventually resulted in what was called the Copenhagen Interpretation when Heisenberg and Niels Bohr reconciled the two models to create modern quantum mechanics. The models, they said, were mutually exclusive yet complimentary and jointly required to explain the quantum. The link I provided will give you a good primer on this topic
2) “[T]hat life exists is either the result of a creator or it is the result of the fact that it exists because it has to based on the natural order of things. Life is a result of the physical laws of the universe, not the other way around. Life exists because of the way our universe functions. We are able to understand our universe because of the way it functions.” That’s close, but not quite right. I’ll refer you to the Anthropic Principle for more insight and pay particular attention to the difference between the strong and weak versions of the principle. That “[l]ife exists because of the way our universe functions” is irrefutable . . . based upon a observation made within the physical universe. We are back to the observer.
From the link provided (as I could not write a better summary myself), consider again the role of the observer. “The notion of the observer becoming a part of the observed system is fundamentally new in physics. In quantum physics, the observer is no longer external and neutral, but through the act of measurement he becomes himself a part of observed reality. This marks the end of the neutrality of the experimenter. It also has huge implications on the epistemology of science: certain facts are no longer objectifiable in quantum theory. If in an exact science, such as physics, the outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer, then what does this imply for other fields of human knowledge? It would seem that in any faculty of science, there are different interpretations of the same phenomena. More often than occasionally, these interpretations are in conflict with each other. Does this mean that ultimate truth is unknowable?” Well based on the work of Kurt Gödel, I’d have to say yes. Gödel proved that in any given system there must be something accepted as true although unprovable – and his math checks. This is a “reflection” (I won’t say corollary as that is not quite right) of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in action.
3) Your views on causality in the physical universe are not flawed as they are constrained by the Ghost of Newton. Causation and the nature of reality to the observer are related in a tangential fashion. It was this very relationship discovered by Einstein in his writings on Doppler shift that I feel led to Heisenberg’s work. Relativity isn’t just about the energy/mass equivalence. It’s about the relationship between observer and observed. That being said, even Einstein had problems accepting the full implications of his discovery as evidenced by his refusal to accept Heisenberg’s later derivative work.
4) “[W]e are conscious of self because of the natural world and the stimulus from our senses. The natural world creates the individual, the individual does not create the natural world.” This is incorrect because you assume sensory input of humans as the final arbiter of reality when science has proven time and again sensory input is unreliable. Law and psychology does this as well. Ask any lawyer about the value of eyewitness testimony vs. forensic examination. We cannot “see” electron flow, but we understand electricity.
Aside from the error regarding human perception, there is little scientific wrong with your statement, although “the individual does not create the natural world” is a question better left to philosophy and psychology. I’m not the first person to say “reality is a state of mind” but writing that phrase hundreds of times on a window sill in the third grade is how I got into G&T programs. You, as an engineer, tend to view perception as a constant when quantum mechanics, psychology and philosophy clearly tells us this is not the case. Does this mean there is no “objective” reality? Perhaps. But I’d prefer to think we collectively make our “objective” reality as a species. To quote Carl Sagan from “Contact” (I’m relying on memory of the film it’s been so long since I read the book) . . .
David Drumlin: I know you must think this is all very unfair. Maybe that’s an understatement. What you don’t know is I agree. I wish the world was a place where fair was the bottom line, where the kind of idealism you showed at the hearing was rewarded, not taken advantage of. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world.
Ellie Arroway: Funny, I’ve always believed that the world is what we make of it.
I’m in the Arroway camp for a fact.
And I’m not saying you are wrong so much as I am saying your base of knowledge is incomplete (as is mine and every other human on this ball of rock). Don’t let that limit you when considering concepts like a holographic universe. The universe is not only stranger than you imagine, dear Horatio, but stranger than you CAN imagine. But in the end, everything is
one.
Buddha:
consider a child born with no sense of smell, taste, sight, touch, hearing or any other way to perceive the external world. Can that child grow to become a being that knows it is an individual and can he/she become conscious?
“The natural world does exist outside of our perceptions and we use our senses to understand the world/universe.” Your grandfather exists outside of you that is what I am saying. You only became aware of him when you became aware of yourself.
Also my son is taking physics at university and I was talking to him about your post. What I am getting out of it is that we have yet to fully understand QM and that there are possibly things going on that we cannot at this point measure.
Bron,
In re: the child. There is only one problem with that and that is the assumption that sensory input and consciousness are interdependent. That is anthropomorphic thinking.
In re: grandfather. He did indeed exist independent from me, but you have not disabled my contention, but rather reinforced that the observer has a role in the nature of reality. If I had never known my grandfather, it would not change that my father did, just the totality of universal knowledge as I would not be an observer had I not existed. The knowledge “set” would be different if you want to use number and/or information theory. My grandfather would have existed, just in a different state than this universe set down by including me in it.
And yes, QM is not “fully understood” but it should be clear from Gödel’s work that full understanding, or complete knowledge if you will, of any system is not mathematically possible. I should also point out that certain aspects of classical Newtonian physics are not known yet either. For example, the math that indicates that during the universe’s rapid expansion phase that space/time grew at a rate that had to exceed the speed of light. That’s a hard one to reconcile.
That is not to say that we cannot increase the “resolution” of our data to gain a greater understanding of the universe than we currently have, but only that said knowledge is not “perfectable”. To be perfect, it would require both omniscience and omnipresence, qualities that are not only by definition God-like, but would require that We the Observers be outside the physical universe in order to make said observations because they would REQUIRE we not be constrained by the physical universe and its rules we do know to be “both of the omni’s”.
Buddha:
how does one become conscious? It dosent just spontaneously occur at some point in time. And in my opinion this is caused by external stimuli through our senses.
But I suppose this gets into the tabula rasa arguments.
Mespo, any thoughts to the ones Buddha and I have put forth?
Bron,
Consciousness, IMHO, is a result of complexity in a neural or other energy exchanging matrix. The “nature” of that consciousness, however, would naturally be influenced by any sensory input. For example: how would you convey the beauty of a Van Gogh to an alien that only sees in infrared? Consciousness is a function of self-organization in energetic systems. So, yes, it does just spontaneously occur. Scale can be a factor as well as density of interactive components. Consider the planet Solaris from the book of the same name by Stanislaw Lem. The entire planet is alive. It’s base transactions are low energy, but they are spread out on such as huge scale that at some point in the evolution of the planet, the complexity reached a point where Solaris became self-aware. And the scale so large that it became very intelligent, almost god-like in comparison to a human. This type of consciousness is a perfect reflection of complexity/chaos theory. When a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it starts to self organize, but as complexity increases, so does the potential for error. Too much error leads to instability. Is not consciousness as we humans experience a form of error correction? We form internalized models of reality and are constantly having to modify them based on new data. People used to think the Earth was not only flat but the center of the universe. I also point to your own experience here with political thought as an example of error correction by consciousness as complexity increases. This is also reflected in Darwinism as adaptation and survival of the fittest. Those that can error correct have a survival advantage.
Buddha:
Thinking the earth is flat or that liberals are misguided is an error in fact not a part of consciousness. Our ability to learn and correct errors are not an indication of consciousness but are higher functions of the brain. It is doubtful a snake understands it is an individual or has self knowledge, but it can obviously adapt due to the fact that snakes are successful critters.
Can you recall the first time you looked in the mirror and knew that you were you? That is consciousness, and thinking is a secondary aspect of consciousness. I think therefor I am should actually be I am therefor I think.
It is actually rather hard to describe consciousness let alone how it occurs.
Bron,
How do you know a snake has no sense of self? Let alone self awareness?
There is a difference between sense of self and self awareness. To instantly say snakes are not self aware is again anthropomorphic thinking, but to say they have no sense of self simply defies scientific observation by your own admission.
Any being that can take input and adjust by definition must have some sense of self. Take the sensation of pain. Pavlov worked on dogs. Snakes, while not as sophisticated as dogs, sense pain and can adjust. Recently, it was proven that crabs feel and remember pain and they are far more primitive that a snake much less a dog. While a snake may not be able to contemplate complex thoughts about the nature of its existence, a smart dog has the cognition and language skills of a human four year old and is ergo capable of more sophisticated thought than a snake. Four year olds recognize themselves as do smart dogs. Both snakes and dogs have a sense of self, but only the dog has self awareness. You’re implying that the threshold for consciousness is self awareness as ego. Looking in a mirror and saying “I am I”. I posit that a better threshold is the modification of behavior to enhance self-preservation, often degraded as “instinct”, is actually the kernel of self awareness and that the threshold is not a clear line, but fuzzy. After all, you can’t have self awareness without sense of self. What is sense of self but the foundation for survival? They are essentially the same thing but at differing levels of complexity. If one cannot feel pain, one doesn’t know they are being damaged and possibly face extinction/termination. As evolution moves on, who is to say a dog won’t gain the neural complexity to achieve “higher thought” or abstraction beyond self-preservation. Or that a snake or other reptile may not gain self awareness in addition to sense of self. In the case of snakes, some would say they already have. Birds are direct lineal descendants of dinosaurs and have a lot in common with reptiles, yet Grey Parrots exhibit not only sophisticated language skills, but basic math and most certainly self awareness. Dolphins have been proven complex thinkers and self aware as well if you want to stick with mammals, albeit cetaceans.
So the problem now appears one of definition. And if you insist that ego is the threshold for self awareness, that the complexity required to develop ego is what separates man from animal, what does that mean for the many discussions we’ve had here about the nature of evil being rooted in ego? That would imply that self awareness is intrinsically evil unless tempered by free will. Is free will the next level of complexity over ego? I think so. lol Now there’s a thought that’ll keep the theologians up at night! I know from personal experience that being evil is a choice just like being good is, so perhaps maybe your definition of self aware must include a free will component, e.g. the ability to act on reason over instinct. Perhaps this is what differentiates man into free thinkers and followers. Take fundamentalism. Under this model is it not possible that some if not many fundies abdicate free will so easily and readily because many of them don’t have the sufficient neural complexity to have free will in addition to ego? It’s a valid question and relates directly to consciousness. But does the impairment of free will make them less human? Do more evolved beings have an obligation to lesser evolved beings? I think you’re getting a sense now of how deep this rabbit hole goes.
It’s all in the varying degrees of complexity, my friend. The question is where to draw the line.
Buddha:
“How do you know a snake has no sense of self? Let alone self awareness?”
****************
Come now Buddha, after 8 years of listening to him speak, do you really think our former Snake in Chief has any sense of anything?
Buddha:
Interesting thoughts, especially about fundamentalism and free will and the nature of a fundamentalist.
Do you know any very smart or brilliant fundamentalists?
I don’t think snakes have any self awareness, they are just eating and reproducing machines same as crabs. Although most crabs don’t get a chance to learn from their mistakes, especially Chesapeake Bay Blue Crabs.
I tend to agree that there are a good many species of animals that probably are self aware, I am sure my dog Toby is and I think pigs may be, dolphins-I’ll go along with that assumption. I am almost a vegetarian because of just those types of thoughts, although I suppose that is the same as being almost pregnant.
The nature of evil is either bad mental health or a choice or both. Sometimes though I think a good number of people could be evil if societal restraints were removed.
That is one good thing religion is for, to keep our darker natures in check. Although the man as rational animal is good to but I think that takes a little more sophistication of thought. It also goes to what you were saying about levels of complexity.
Food for thought as always.
Mespo,
I’m sorry, I was under the impression Bron wanted to discuss conscious, intelligent life. While Bush’s lack of intelligence is and should never be questioned based on the evidence, I’m not really sure he’s conscious. More like a slime mold with the ability to maul English by chaining words together but unable to formulate actual sentences containing useful information. Perhaps it’s a defense mechanism. To make himself look smarter than he is kinda like the puffer fish strategy to appear larger to scare off predators.
It just goes to show you, not all mutations are beneficial.
my wife went to school at UVA when Marvin Bush was there and she agrees! She had that worthless piss-ant pegged from day one, it took me many years to agree.
She wasn’t surprised by anything he did, she used to tell me his mother raised him to believe his stuff didn’t stink and that he was a superior being compared to all us “commoners”. I should have listened in 2004. As my uncle used to say “to soon old too late smart”.
Mespo: “I have heard viruses may be the catalyst of life,…”
That struck a chord and I went searching for where I first heard of the possibility. I heard it in connection with the Gaia theory. Dr. Lynn Margulis did pioneering work on symbiosis and her work was lumped into the same category in the popular literature. The Gaia theory was soundly pummeled but after years of refinement has been distilled into something pretty respectable. This is a reference to Margulis. I think as time goes on her work will be vindicated and the possibility of viruses and bacteria being engines of life and evolution will be recognized as foundational. We’re all just big ol’ bags of simbiotes and bacteria.
“Theory of symbiotic relationships driving evolution
…She later formulated a theory to explain how symbiotic relationships between organisms of often different phyla or kingdoms are the driving force of evolution. Genetic variation is proposed to occur mainly as a result of transfer of nuclear information between bacterial cells or viruses and eukaryotic cells. While her organelle genesis ideas are widely accepted, symbiotic relationships as a current method of introducing genetic variation is something of a fringe idea. However, examination of the results from the Human Genome Project lends some credence to an endosymbiotic theory of evolution—or at the very least Margulis’s endosymbiotic theory is the catalyst for current ideas about the composition of the human genome….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis
Bron & Buddha, wow.
This is a matter I’ve been giving a lot of thought to lately and my thoughts are still unsettled, far too unsettled and ill informed to jump into a detailed discussion beyond a few generalities. I’m in agreement generally with Buddha because I have read enough to know his understanding of the theories is square with the results of the experiments and consistent with the generally accepted theories I’ve read about over the last couple of years. I assume the math is correct and respect the scientific method so the conclusions, no matter how counter-intuitive require my deference.
I simply don’t have the vocabulary to express my own incipient take on the matter adequately but I don’t see any conflict between the views held by both of you because they are both aspects of the same mechanism. It’s not a stretch for me to see the universe of a self-organized system that evolved ‘parts’ like us (and the probable billions of other sentient critters) to fill some need, self examination possibly the least of it. I love the idea of the universe being a self-organized, intelligent system. Thank you for bring that up Buddha.
My contention is that if anything, we are limited to only the universe we participate in the formulation of because we are limited to our sensory and intellectual perceptions and can only access 3 dimensions due to our physical configuration. These are physical limitations that blind us to a complete view of what does actually exist. What we call an objective universe may well be those aspects that look the same to a major number of the creature species (scattered across the universe) that examine it and influence it; literally a consensus of what the universe is. Everything else is relegated to dimensions occupied by the specific creatures doing the viewing and influencing or perceived imperfectly due to the limited number of dimensions accessible to those creatures.
It is not controversial to me (or to the science as I understand it) to think that what we call an objective universe is simply a universe constructed by critters that evolved elsewhere at some other time but that had enough shared physical and intellectual traits with us that we access some of the same dimensions.
Or something like that. Or not.
Hi All,
What a profound thread this post has turn into; thank-you for all the recommended reading. When discussions arise about what is reality, time, perception, self and such…I feel a desire to be more open.
I wonder if I would ever be as comfortable as Mike S. seems to be in revealing his authentic self. Many months ago FFLEO directly asked me my gender and joked how he needed to know as he geared his replies accordingly. I didn’t answer because I did not want a filter applied. Since then I’ve felt that somehow I missed the proper opportunity to introduce myself. The moment pasted and I’m probably the only one who is conscious of the few “facts” I’ve revealed about myself. Having read you all for months before venturing to comment I felt as if I knew you and I have grown fond of many; so it’s no great revelation but I am a woman; and that’s a start anyway.
Thank-you Mespo, Faith Hill’s “The Secret of Life” was a very apropos pick for JT’s cyber bar and the lyrics “A couple of guys sitting around drinking…” encouraged my opening up.
Well that and the Margaritas I’ve been drinking since Cinco de Mayo! I’m way off topic; which was what again… Oh yes! Flu!
which makes me think of Mexico; and way down there you need a reason to go; and James Taylor; and…
“The Secret of Life”
The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time
Any fool can do it
There ain’t nothing to it
Nobody knows how we got to
The top of the hill
But since were on our way down
We might as well enjoy the ride
The secret of life is in opening up your heart
It’s okay to feel afraid
But don’t let that stand in your way
Cause anyone knows that love is the only road
And since were only here for a while
Might as well show some style
Give us a smile
Isn’t it a lovely day
Sliding down
Gliding down
Try not to try to hard
Its just a lovely ride
Now the thing about time is that time
Isn’t really real
It’s just your point of view
How does it feel for you
Einstein said he could never understand it all
Planets spinning in space
The smile upon your face
Welcome to the Human Race….some kind of lovely ride!
Yikes! The moment past; wasted not pasted.
Oh and I don’t really drink that often but it was a holiday!
You know CEJ I thought you were a lady from the outset. Don’t know why. Probably just the thoughtfulness of your comments and the syntax. Anyway glad you decided to fill us in. Keep posting here at our little lyceum.
Mespo:
from previous posts I know that you like wine and I will assume you to be knowledgable about the subject. So the question is why do all red wines I have ever tried, taste so bitter/tannic? Is it my palet or am I just not picking the right bottle? I have tasted many wines and about 98% are this way. I have had a couple that were not and price does not seem to matter. Can you suggest a couple or am I a hopeless case? [strictly from a wine stand point, no pot shots please.] I am not a fan of whites as I like the robustness of the reds.
Bron98:
Not all are tannic tasting but most have the bite. I would suggest you head over to your local wine shop and attend a tasting. Ask lots of questions. The staff at ours here in Richmond love to explain the varieties and have incredible knowledge of the differing tastes. It really is a “to each his own” world. I enjoy some merlots and an occasional cab, but I usually stick to the whites with dinner since they aren’t so heavy. To answer you directly I would try a light-bodied Beaujolais Nouveau from Louis Jadot or some vintner like that.
CEJ, welcome! May 5 to 8 drinking Margaritas. Even if not full-time your stamina is formidable! Good on you. Considering your posting of that lovely James Taylor song I will arbitrarily designate one of your Margaritas as a toast to my 30-something year wedding anniversary.
When the better half and I married it was not only on Cinco de Mayo but Kentucky Derby day fell on May 5th that year! The symbolism of being married on a day of massive celebration and gambling was lost on me at the time but I get a giggle out of it now. As if that wasn’t ‘mystical’ enough our birthdays are 8-28-48 and 7-27-47
“Now the thing about time is that time
Isn’t really real
It’s just your point of view…”
That could be a song lyric or a statement of the (actual) prevailing theory. Hummm, you should have jumped in sooner, don’t wait so long next time