Recently, Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas took to the floor of the House to talk about Wikileaks, transparency in government, and the case of Daniel Ellsberg, the 
Pentagon Papers, and the New York Times. He spoke about how the Iraq War was based on lies. He asked how the U. S. government should prosecute a citizen of Australia for publishing classified U. S. documents that he did not steal. Paul also said the following: “Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.”
Paul posed a number of questions at the end of his talk:
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised ‘Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.’ I yield back the balance of my time.
Source: Huffington Post
– Elaine Magliaro
@Slarti: I think you missed the point. As I wrote, there are infinite gradations of rationality; the amount of rationality that informs the amygdala is (wait for it) up to the amygdala. As the patients with dead amygdala prove, the rational mind will dutifully spin forever on the most trivial of decisions until the amygdala throws a thumb on the scale because some rational outcome triggers a strong enough reaction; positive or negative.
My claim is that when it comes to writing law, we should force extreme rationality upon ourselves. WE AMERICANS force next to none; so I am not talking about Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians here. I am saying that as a matter of political philosophy the world would be a better place if every law passed (including taxes) came with a clearly rational explanation for what objective public good the lawmakers hope to achieve with the law.
There is no false dichotomy. The law can and should address and resolve emotional issues, like divorce, without itself being emotional. The law can distinguish between self-defense, negligent manslaughter and pre-meditated murder.
The law and courts are primarily there to deal with people succumbing to emotions (including desperation, greed, jealousy, revenge, etc.)
My claim is that when we devise laws to deal with these people, we should be uber-rational in devising those laws and determining what punishment or treatment we are going to force upon these people (I believe in both punishment and treatment in different circumstances, and I thing punishment can include fines, community service, incarceration or the death penalty for those that have ended or ruined the lives of others).
I believe laws should be rational, and the actions we take on behalf of citizens should be taken with some objective in mind that a solid majority (i.e. enough people so that their view is likely to remain the majority view for many years; something like 2/3 of adults) view as fair and balanced for the crime in question. (In the real sense, not in the FOX News sense!)
So please, be specific and rational and point out where my “false dichotomy” lies. I’d like to address it. If you cannot point it out, I will assume that claim is just emotional; that your rational self agrees with me but your emotional self wants some fig leaf for disagreement so you plucked some argumentation term out of the air.
Gyges asked me to take a look at this thread so I thought I’d just jump right in and invite fire from all sides…
Buddha,
I disagree with your stipulation. In my opinion, a better analogy is that of the map and the territory. On the one hand science is the map and the universe is the territory. Math is the language in which the map is written. On the other hand we have the law which, while there are some parallels (the ‘map’ is ‘written’ in a language of founding documents, statutes and rulings, etc.), I don’t believe is analogous to science in this way. (The gripping hand 😉 is that I don’t think we would want the law to follow rigid and objective rules like science does – as you pointed out dealing with human nature requires flexibility.) A soft science is characterized by the lack of quantifiable (or, more accurately, measurable) variables, not any relaxing of rigor in the scientific method. In the context of my analogy, I think that the territory would be society, law (or the social contract or the legal system or however you want to put it) would be analogous to some product of technology making philosophy and psychology the counterparts of different areas of science – you have the ‘scientists’ who write treatises on governing and the law and such and ‘engineers’ who write things like the Constitution and so on (the judges and cops and lawyers and legislators would be like the crew of a ship and the populace like the passengers…).
On the topic of Tony C’s embrace of the excluded middle, I agree with you completely. He has a tendency to take (otherwise sound) reasoning and invalidate it by imposing an unrealistic dichotomy.
Tony,
The stuff about ‘amygdala hijack’ was fascinating. I don’t fundamentally disagree with anything you said about the functioning of the individual brain, but I think that the problem arises when you consider the interaction of multiple individuals. While at it’s base level the brain may be binary that doesn’t mean that all of our models that study any kind of behavior of brains must necessarily be binary – just like how the fact that the processor of a computer just understands machine code doesn’t mean that we can’t program in high-level languages. It is the logic of the system that we are trying to describe that dictates our choice of model, and the logic of law and politics (and the human interactions that they are comprised of) is anything but binary. And I assume that experiments performed during the Manhattan Project would probably have falsified the atomic elemental hypothesis…
Chan,
What would you expect the ‘plagiarism score’ to be if Buddha was paraphrasing what he had learned long ago from a single primary source (as he represented)? I would expect the result to be somewhere between a direct quote and original work – kind of like what you found…
Gyges,
I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said here (what? I’ve got to have someone on my side… ;-)) especially with regard to moving karma. What do you think of my analogy?
@Gyges: Sure, but falsifiability is for a hypothesis, it is a tool of science to ensure we learn something new. I hypothesize that 0.3% aluminum oxide will increase the conductivity of this material; I can make a falsifiable test of that hypothesis.
But is “evolution” falsifiable by any realistic experiment or observation? I think evolution is a science, we can discover how evolution does and does not work with falsifiable experiments within evolution. Or to take something less controversial for some people, within “chemistry.”
I cannot imagine any experiment I can do that would falsify the atomic elemental hypothesis (i.e. that elements are composed of “indivisible” atoms of that element; “indivisible” in the sense that if the atom is divided, the results will not have any of the chemical properties of the original atom).
Tony C.,
There’s a reason that the negative is emphasized in the falsifiability requirement. Science never really proves anything, it just proves that “more likely than not.”
Also, “the science of X” is a different statement than “X is a science.”
@Gyges: You can falsify those by finding facts that don’t fit that theory, or fit another theory better.
I suppose, but you can’t verify them either! Remember, we are talking here about how to define science: Since science seeks to explain the world, a correct theory will never be falsified. Right?
For example, plate tectonics (continental drift) was proposed in 1912 by Wegener and pushed by him until he died in 1930, it wasn’t accepted until a quarter of a century later. This is despite his considerable geologic and fossil evidence: identical rock composition on disparate coasts, identical fossils of plant life that would be out of place for the climate in which it was found (like equatorial rain forest ferns in a northern frozen climate).
The problem that scientists had with Wegener is similar to the problem they had with Darwin: They both produced evidence without any good mechanisms for execution. Wegener showed convincing evidence of continental drift, but the scientific community believed in a “fixed Earth” and dismissed his tons of compelling evidence as anomalous. (Darwin and his peers had no inkling of DNA or the concept of beneficial mutations).
Wegener’s theories will never be falsified because he was right. Just like I don’t think Darwin’s theory of evolution will ever be falsified because it is right.
I think falsifiability is important for a new theory within a science, but so is repeatability. I think the measure of a science is its ability to predict outcomes. For sciences (like continental drift or astronomy) that seek to explain an outcome, the science part is repeatability, and something I might call specificity: Coming up with rules that can be applied by anybody to a starting condition and produce the observed outcomes, and cannot be applied in such a way as to produce any other outcome. Ideally, at least.
Religion, for example, pretends to both predict and explain outcomes, but the rules they use (like God’s Will) can produce literally any outcome. The devout live lives of misery and poverty while genocidal maniacs live like happy kings and pass away peacefully in their beds. Why? Because it is God’s Will and Plan, but if the opposite happens, that would be God’s Will and Plan as well.
So just to be clear, I am not claiming you are wrong and I don’t have any particular definition of science in mind; I think it is an interesting question and I’m just playing devil’s advocate.
Have I mentioned that moving sucks? And not just a little bit?
Anywho, I’m back on the air. I’ll have to address the comments here later in the week though. But I will get to them eventually.
Until then . . . the joys of unpacking and guessing which “empty” box has become the cat hiding place de jour.
@Gyges: Presumably, there is some purpose for the set of rules. In linear algebra, I want to factor a matrix into an orthogonal and a triangular matrix (a QR factorization), there are various different sets of rules that can accomplish that feat, but any set of rules that claims to do that can be falsified by following the rules and seeing the result.
The same for the law. Is it supposed to produce fair treatment? “Fair” may be a subjective and emotional state, but we can generally rely on people to tell us if they find a judgement fair or not, just as we can rely on them to tell us if something tastes good or not.
If the purpose of the law is objective (reducing crime rates, reducing traffic deaths, reducing house fires, reducing fraud) then if we have been measuring the incidence for a baseline, we can measure and determine if the law is having the desired effect. Understanding why laws work or don’t to accomplish their objectives would be the science of law. I presume somebody does that somewhere, if they do not it seems like a rich field of study.
Tony,
You can falsify those by finding facts that don’t fit that theory, or fit another theory better. For instance: you could find evidence of a super volcano’s eruption in the same time frame as the mass extinction; you could discover that the moon’s composition isn’t consistent with what it would be if it were from a planetary collision. That’s what makes them scientific and “God did it” non scientific. A god could have used any method it wanted, so it’s impossible to find evidence that fits another theory better, because god could have just used that method.
Now, there are soft sciences that are non-repeatable, like your two examples, but non-repeatable doesn’t mean non falsifiable. Also, falsifiable doesn’t equal scientific, but it’s a requirement; a shape can have a 90 degree angle and not be a square, but all squares have to have 90 degree angles. Maybe I’m just holding on to Popper when the scientific community has moved on.
Which brings me to why I don’t think law is a science. How do you falsify a set of rules?
@Chan L: Ahh, well. I regard this forum as informal; I do not cut and paste hardly ever but I have described scientific results I have read elsewhere and not given them proper attribution (like the studies of the amygdala-damaged patients, or the amygdala hijack on the bridge story), so I am not upset.
Tony C:
if you check Bubbha’s post where he tells you he is explaining Bayesian Logic to you, he isnt. He lifted it from somewhere. I ran a plagiarism check on it and it scored 50 out of 100. 0 being a total lifting of the material.
So it is mostly cut and paste with a few “original” thoughts and no attribution. In other words it is not Bubbha explaining it to you but Bubbha poorly rehashing someone else’s material.
Since this is a blog it doesn’t really matter but I thought you might like to know.
Now it could be he just forgot to attribute or it is from the book he mentioned at the bottom of the post and so that is his method of attribution. I guess we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
@Gyges: I know your comment is directed at Buddha; but my two cents is that something is a “science” when it’s goal is to improve predictability of outcomes. But, take somebody like Tycho Brahe, just measuring the positions of planets night after night for years and years, to fine precision. Was he a scientist? He did not know what to do with his numbers, but after Brahe’s death Kepler used them to derive the laws of planetary motion. I consider Brahe’s work “science,” the goal was ultimately to understand something he did not, and (posthumously) his data was critical to that effort.
Was Brahe’s work ‘falsifiable’? Only theoretically, nobody else on Earth had the resources to make these measurements at that time; and we cannot remake them in the past.
I think science is a sliding scale; the more accurately a discipline can resolve unknowns (including outcomes as physics and chemistry do, but also things like predicting the composition of a material or concluding something about past events; like geology or anthropology are sciences), the more explanatory it is, the more of a science it is. I am not sure it is ‘falsifiable’ to conclude a meteor was responsible for a mass extinction, or a planetary collision was responsible for creating our over-sized moon, but I think of those as scientific conclusions, don’t you?
Buddha,
I thought we generally called the people who mainly dealt with applied science engineers?
I think we need to define what makes something a science. I’m willing to be flexible on a lot of things when it comes to that definition, but not falsifiability.
@Buddha:
because I find a lot of engineers get hung up on the law of the excluded middle. Oddly enough, even though you’re a scientist and not an engineer (and as such presumably familiar with statistics beyond the basics), this is the same error you make by insisting everything is either “rational” or “emotional”.
Actually I am a research scientist in an applied engineering field; I spent most of my career managing engineers and saving engineering projects. I took three graduate level courses in statistics, and still employ them frequently.
You will have to be more specific on what “hung up” on the excluded middle means. It does not mean I am restricted to binary thought if I recognize that some things are binary. Thought just happens to be binary; the evidence is in both brain science and in statistical psychology. Essentially the neocortex (we’ll say cortex) is an add-on that handles rationality and planning. The amygdalae are more primitive structures found even in animals lacking a cortex that process emotionality, and they can override the cortex completely.
Persons that have suffered damage to the amygdalae (by cancer or injury) have been studied, and can be perfectly rational, and simultaneously dysfunctional: They can stand for hours and fail to pick out a shirt to wear; because (1) They do not get bored or frustrated. These are emotions, and (2) they similarly do not feel pressured to complete the task or embarrassed that they cannot complete it (more emotions), and (3) Despite rationally knowing they are taking too long to make a decision, this does not cause any consternation, or worry about not getting something productive done, or any other emotion.
These people literally do not possess the equipment to feel fear or hope or anything else, and this makes them dysfunctional in the real world. They don’t even have the emotional equipment to prefer red over blue today, and their rational equipment, deprived of that preference, will just spin endlessly analyzing future scenarios, people they might meet, situations they might find themselves in, and imagining themselves in red, in blue, in red, in blue. Their rational mind is trying to provoke some damn reaction from the amygdalae that never comes, and like a machine it just keeps on trying. (They can feel pain and discomfort, hunger and thirst and the need to eliminate, those are not emotions).
The evidence provided by these unfortunate victims is clear and unambiguous and supports the following observation: Biologically (and physically) speaking, Rationality serves Emotion. Rationality is an evolutionary add-on, a late development, and as we’d suspect for a newcomer, it is an appendage, a subordinate subroutine for the emotional decision making engine which has been in control for eons.
The job of the cortex is to recognize patterns which it uses to anticipate probable future outcomes as best it can. This makes it capable of predicting the consequences of acts and decisions, and how those consequences would make us feel in the future informs or modifies our first or instinctive urges. So, for example, your landlord is a jerk and you feel the urge to punch him. You might think rationality overrides that urge. However (and with all the caveats about how little we know about the brain) what seems to happen instead is the cortex evokes possible futures including physical retaliation by the landlord, legal retaliation, financial losses, time lost in a formal arrest and depositions, and your emotional reaction to these prospects, even if subconscious, dampens your enthusiasm for the momentary satisfaction of causing him pain to retaliate for him causing you pain: i.e. the cortex does not have a supervisory role, it has an advisory role.
A second proof of this relationship in normal healthy people lies in a phenomenon termed “amygdala hijack” in which people take sudden irrational action due to emotional triggers. Although the action is usually inappropriate, it can be heroic: I first read the following true story more than ten years ago; so pardon any inaccuracies: A twenty-something young man is on a bridge with other spectators; they are observing, for entertainment, a raging river filled with debris that has been swollen to overflowing by a recent series of unusual rainstorms. According to witnesses, the young man suddenly vaults the rail and dives headfirst into the turbulent river, about 30 feet below. When they spot him down stream, he has a child in one arm, a young girl he is trying to hold above water while struggling to swim to shore with his other arm, quite unsuccessfully. Both young man and child are eventually recovered safely, the young man says he has no idea what happened. His memory of the incident is a series of still pictures, like panels in a comic book (not uncommon in amygdala hijack): (1) He was on the bridge. (2) He was in the air, and knew there was a child in the water. (3) He was in the water and looking for the child and saw her at some distance. (4) He had a grip on the struggling girl and was trying to keep her above water without drowning himself and fending off an errant log, and his memory was normal from that point on.
He did not recall ever actually seeing the girl in the water while standing on the bridge; one instant he was admiring the raging river, the next instant he was in midair. He did not remember entering the water or surfacing, or swimming to the girl. He did not make a rational choice to risk his life; this was an amygdala hijack (that could have easily turned into a mysterious suicide).
This model helps explain the behaviors of compulsion, addiction, and other self-destructive behavior. The cortex of the addictive eater knows full well at the moment fork is put to cake that the momentary pleasure of cake will not turn out well in the long run, but they are incapable of overriding the desire for the cake. When we talk about “will power” we are talking about the ability of the cortex to influence the emotional engine; or the degree to which the emotional engine has been trained to respond to the cortex.
(Both can be trained; animals with little or no cortex can be trained by reward and punishment. But that is also the level of training achievable in the human decision engine when uninformed by the cortex. Psychologically speaking, and this is pure speculation on my part, it is possible that some compulsive behavior has a biological cause in the signaling between the cortex and amygdalae, but it is also possible that in some people, poor impulse control is a result of poor emotional brain training – i.e. in their lives, through bad luck or bad teaching, the signals from their cortex have not reliably produced ‘better’ outcomes for them, so the “rewards and punishments” of either using the cortex or ignoring it have been inconsistent, making their cortex only weakly influential.)
When I say there are two modes of thought, it is not binary thinking on my part: There really are, physically speaking, these two modes: purely emotional and rationally-informed emotional. What I mean by “rational” thought is really “as rational as possible while still producing a decision.” Then the phrase “as rational as possible” requires clarification, and here we reach your middle ground: We do not (metaphorically speaking) want to pay more for a decision than it is worth, so what is possible varies with the situational risk of the decision. A routine meal in a restaurant has a low situational risk and requires very little rationality. Passing a new law should be considered to have a high situational risk and requires a LOT of rationality.
The physical model suggests there are infinite degrees of rationality. A damaged person can debate which tie to wear ad infinitum, a normal person grabs the blue-on-blue stripe and hardly realizes a decision was made. But for the purpose of Constitutions, Laws and Governance I still maintain there are two modes only: carefully considered, rational, reality-based thought with a full exploration of reasonable consequences and assumptions, and anything less than that. Since what is “less than that” is more infected than need be with emotional bias and short-term thinking and probably error, I call that “emotional thought.”
*****
In morality, it isn’t messy, it is fuzzy; specifically there is no excluded middle for actions because actions depend upon intent, perception, context and the series of events that led to them. If all I know is that Alex shot and killed Bill (just A&B names) then I know almost nothing. Alex may be evil, a hero, a careless hunter, a soldier, a child unaware of what he has done, a citizen acting in self-defense, a good cop, a bad cop, whatever. We know nothing about the circumstances. Killing another person is actually much more fuzzy than something simpler, like cheating on a test. That is again because of the situational risk of getting it wrong; if Alex kills Bill, we will soon be deciding the entire future course of Alex’ life. If Alex cheats on a test, we give him a zero and take away his iPhone for a week.
*****
Statistics: I will address these expository claims in reverse for clarity.
I’m really surprised I have to explain this to a scientist. There are more tools and sets of tools in the reason toolbox than one, Tony.
See, typically when I am surprised, I re-examine my experiment, my assumptions, and look for holes in my logic and conclusions. 🙂
I happen to be one scientist for whom you could have skipped this explanation. I believe you are making the cognitive error that because I have said something radical that you disagree with (I presume) I must therefore be an uneducated, ignorant goofball, a high-school algebraist expounding upon the theory of calculus. Or an academic, long lost in my elaborate whiteboard theories, safely ensconced in my ivory tower and sadly divorced from the real world. I am neither of these. Believe what you will, but my life experience spans a broader range than the average American and I have worked in five times as many venues as the average worker. I’ve spent my life solving problems: not just math problems and engineering problems, but people problems, managerial problems, legal problems, supply problems, sales problems, patent problems, machine problems, production problems, funding problems, marketing problems, writing problems, planning problems, personnel problems and logistics problems.
To set the record straight on my statistical education: I took the standard two undergraduate statistics courses for an engineering discipline; in the graduate realm I have taken three courses, including Time Series Analysis (primarily used in business statistical analysis but also useful in engineering), a course in advanced multivariate regression analysis, and a graduate course in applied techniques (bootstrapping, Monte Carlo analysis, Maximum likelihood estimation, least-squared-median error regression and piecewise regressions, non-linear regressions, etc.). As a professional I am self-taught in the use of Markov chains and gamma distributions (GD are the most common distribution in medical and neural statistics). On top of that, while I was an undergraduate, as an elective I requested and received a dispensation to take the graduate statistical sociology course in the same semester as the undergraduate version.
I am very familiar with Bayes’ theorem and Bayesian Inference, ever since my undergraduate days. I have implemented, as an exercise, expert systems that employ fuzzy logic. When I said I had a “handle” on dealing with things “fuzzy by nature” I was being precise, in that sense. If you have a statistical argument you wish to deploy, I believe I can follow it.
(However, I will warn that fuzzy logic is not how neural decision making is probably made, just as we can disprove (statistically) a whole host of claims about how people think or act. They do not routinely act only in their own best interest (in fact that is the exception). They are not natural game theorists seeking the Nash equilibrium. They may seek revenge even if they know it will double their losses, and on and on. Decisions are emotional. The degree to which decisions are also informed by rationality (i.e. future consequences) is all over the map, even for the same decision by the same person at different times.)
I am not trapped in binary logic. However, I am also not trapped by the idea that nothing is binary and everything is fuzzy.
I think I arrive at my conclusions through deliberate logic, hopefully rooted only in my emotional sense of “what is fair.” Just like science, sometimes the logic I use originated with others, sometimes it is original. I do not claim infallibility and I have been mistaken many times in my life, but I think it is a mistake to begin a reasoned discussion with either a religious construct or its equivalent, some unjustifiable and unattainable hypothetically “pure state of nature.” No man has ever had “all rights,” and no person has ever chosen to trade some of his rights to enjoy the benefits of society: Every adult on this planet was born screaming and hungry and incapable of any choice, and utterly dependent on at least one other person for their survival, and in roughly 100% of cases on the charity and protection of many others. That is reality and, I think, the logical place to start.
B,
“For example, prohibition laws – in theory, they were a good idea”
How is it yours, the government’s, or anyone else’s business what adults decide to put into their own bodies? They were not a good idea, even in theory.
Gyges,
Had I known about your view of moving and karma, I would have made all the arrangements is time. I’m moving today and extra hands would be appreciated as is the offer.
As to “Blindsight” by Peter Watts, I’ll put that on the must read list. That’s a pretty heady combination.
As to law as a soft science? Grammar is a subset of language which are subsets of linguistics. Language is a reflection of not just what, but how, we think. Much like psychology. History, also a key to law, is also a soft science. But it is falsifiable. For example, prohibition laws – in theory, they were a good idea, but the experiment of liquor and the ongoing prohibition on marijuana have proven they are a bad idea in application. In that respect, law is also applied history and applied sociology. I have some more I can say on this, but it will have to wait until after the 28th when I get hooked up at the new house.
Now, I have to check my e-mail and get in gear.
This crap isn’t moving itself!
This crap isn’t moving itself.
Buddha,
Three things as asides (it turns out I get chatty after 2/3rds of a bottle of Port Brewery’s “Santa’s Little Helper):
The one area I believe in Karma is helping others move. If you pay for the plane ticket, room and board, daycare for the kid, and buy some beer: I’m there to help.
Also, even though I’m not a cat person (I could never see sharing the house with something that looks at me as prey that’s “just a little too big, for now”), but I am a pet person. I hope yours gives you a few more years of companionship.
Have you read “Blindsight” by Peter Watts? It’s a fairly gripping combination of “Rendezvous with Rama,” Lem (particularly “Solaris” and “The Invincible”, and something from Scott Sigler.
Now, once more into the breach:
Law as a (soft) science? You’ll have to do a bit more selling for me to buy that.
I see it as closer to Grammar than Linguistics. There’s a logic and a history to the rules, but those rules aren’t based on well anything other than general consensus. Take History, which is the same, even if our theories about what happened are constantly shifting. My main problem with calling law a science (and economics to a lesser extent) is that it’s too dependent on what we think.
On the other hand, any social animal has behaviors hard wired into them. Describing that would be part of biology. I’m not sure that the fact that we’re aware enough to change (assuming that most useful of all fictions, free will) that behavior makes it any less biology.
Let’s just say I need to be sold on the falsifiable aspect of law. Even economic theories can be proven wrong, unless of you happen to hold them, which is the only thing this thread proves.
FFLEO,
Thanks for the well wishes.
Buddha,
Good luck with that move, which I always found difficult. I have lived in the same home for 34 years and the only way I would move is feet first, horizontally, and preferably circa year 2050…
Very interesting all the way around.
@Buddha:
I am busy too and working on a response. This time I will edit!