( Previous Chapter | Next Chapter | Intro Page )
WORD PAGE NW TRANSLATION PHONETIC PRONUNCIATION(S) Areopagus 71 Ar·e·op'a·gus air-ee-op'uh-guhs Balaam 60 Ba'laam bay'luhm beneficent 50 ben'e-fi-sent Boncinelli 54 bohn'-chi-ne-lee Broca 56 broh'kuh causality 66 kaw-za'luh-tee chimpanzee 59 chim-pan-zee', -puhn-zee', -pan'zee, shim- cerebral 54 suh-ree'bruhl, ser'uh-bruhl Chalmers 65 chal'muhrz, chah'muhrz Chomsky 61 chahm'skee, chahmp'- cognitive 53 kahg'nuh-tiv commonweal 72 kah'muhn-weel cortex 54 kor'teks dextrous 56 dek'struhs, -stuhr-uhs Eccles 59 eh'kuhlz Edoardo 54 eh'doh-ahr-doh electrochemical 63 i-lek-troh-ke'mi-kuhl Fouts 60 futs Gelernter 51 geh-luhrnt'nuhr grammatical 60 gruh-ma'ti-kuhl homo 60 hoh'moh Koehler 61 keh'luhr Kotulak 52 ? Krauss 62 krahs linguistics 61 ling-gwi'stiks Ludwig 61 lood'wig, -vik Marieb 54 muh-reeb' Massachusetts 53 ma-suh-choo'suhts, -zuhts Milan 54 muh-lan', mee-lahn' Naaman 60 Na'a·man nay'uh-muhn Noam 61 nohm neural 51 nur'uhl, nyur'uhl neurobiologist 64 nur-oh-bie-ah'luh-jist neurophysiologist 69 nur'-oh-fi'-zee-ah'luh-jist neuroscientist 53 nur-oh-sie'uhn-tist nuances 50 nu-ahns, nu-ahnts Ornstein 62 ohrn'steen phoneme 59 foh'neem physiology 54 fi-zee-ah'luh-jee Polkinghorne 72 pohl'keeng-horn prefrontal 54 pree-fruhn'tuhl Premack 60 pree'mak Pulitzer 52 pu'luht-suhr, pyoo' Restak 50 ree-stak' rudimentary 54 ru-duh-men'tuh-ree, -men'tree sapiens 60 sa'pee-uhnz, say'-, -enz symphony 58 sim'fuh-nee symmetry 66 si'muh-tree transcendence 66 tran-sen'dans, trant-sen'dants Trefil 64 tree'fil universality 58 yoo'ni-vuhr-sa-luh-tee vocalizations 59 voh'-kuh-liez Wernicke 56 vair'ni-kuhz, -keez ( Pronunciation KEY )
If a person thinks that creating something with the five sense is either 'no big deal', or a result of random chance, then it should be agreed that intelligent intervention ought to make the replication even easier. After all random chance has to wait until all X-number of pieces falls into just the right sequence and place. Whereas intelligent intervention can align such requirements more swiftly.
Once intelligent intervention is understood to be the most expedient method of reproducing the results of an entity containing the five senses, then challenge them to go ahead and do so. After all, these days not only has human knowlege progressed further than ever before, but also has the ability for collaberation, the ability to coordinate a collective intelligence. Thus most certainly, if the uniqueness of an entity containing the five senses is possible through random opportunity, then the collective can more easily reproduce the effect. Then on top of this, however, in order to mimic humans, the five senses must be of the highest quality! Such as color and stereoscopic for vision, as opposed to flat black and white. Stereophonic for the hearing, as well as the ability to detect direction and distance, as opposed to simple detection of noise. And touch must be sensitive, no matter if the contact is high pressure, or low, the difference is linearly slight, and not a geometric percentage. And the taste must not be according to one chemical at a time, but rather a compilation of nuances to the mix.
Can digitized smell arranged in an array of 32 extendable polymers enjoy the essence of the over 100 components that make up the smell of the rose? While this might be handy for detecting odors that one would rather not (think: arsenic or methane yuk!), without the benefit of the consciousness that stands behind our nose, the enjoyable benefits simply are not possible.
Here we go again with the why. Scientists ask it, and sometimes they even make attempt to give a bandage-answer. Yet all are well aware and admit that the why of things, even why our abilty to be conscience exists, cannot be answered. But here we have a why that can be answered. Why do we benefit from our senses? Ooooh! let me tell you the ways... Oh, wait a minute, this is a discussion in the logical realm, and not an indulgent one. Okay then, back on task:
Animal brains and consciousness operate much more on innateness than does that of humans. If you flick a cats whiskers, then the brain stimulus to those whiskers will respond, both momentarily, and if the flicking continues over time. However humans have the unique ability to have stimulus on a plane of understanding that goes beyond the animal kingdom. For instance, if a dog sees a picture of a hamburger, he will never associate that the picture is one of food. In time he might learn that if the picture is shown to him it means he'll be fed, but alter the picture enough, and even though it's still a picture of a hamburger, he would not salivate in response like the reknowned Pavlov's dogs, which were trained to associate the ringing of a bell with food. Yet, show either picture to a ten year old boy just in from hours of play with friends, and instantly he can associate either hamburger picture with food, and will likely make any nearby parent well aware of such associative abilities. Thus there is something about our brains, that even though tied to the same five senses as many animals, is in a realm of ability beyond the 'animal kingdom'.
Using the numbers provided in the book, which appear to be conservative, then each neuron is worth 2 million instructions per second. Keep in mind, that there is a difference between "clock speed" of a computer, which is the frequency that the microprossesor is toggled at, and the instruction rate, which is the processing of an instruction, such as a calculation. Some cpu's can process several instructions per clock cycle, while others can only perform one per cycle.
Unlike gnats, which appear to have their brain processes hard wired at birth, or chickens, which most of their functions are contained in the brain stem, humans thinking process occurs in an every changing brain, which allows for artistic, abstract, logical, and impressionist thinking to occur.
One thing that computer manufacturers, and scientists, learn early, is that a general purpose computer can never process faster than one which is tailored for a specific task. For example, if all a computer was required to do was to turn a light on when a car passed by, then it could be designed to react nearly as fast as the speed of light, and according to some theories someday maybe even faster. But if designed and programmed to process and react to every activity of a human, from the innateness of breathing while asleep, to the ablity to consider abstract ideas, then in order to perform such a feat using today's technology, if it were even possible to design and program, would take quite a l o n g time in between functions. It wouldn't take long for a human to decide to just perform the task on their own, as they would want to be finished before their grandchildren become grandparents.
Thus it is, that the human brain is highly specialized in not being specialized to one particular task, yet is able to process and activate many tasks in parallel, which would drag under the fastest computers of today. It is possible that someday computers will approach the processing speed of the human mind, but they will have to be specialized and will be unable to replicate the entirety of human living. For instance, as the frequency and processing speeds of microprocessors increases, so does the power draw and generated heat. At the current stand of human technololgy, our brains would be at temperatures approaching levels equal to the sun. Yet even our brain maintains the relatively cool 37°C (98.6°F).
Yet, all of this leaves out some important factors. The fact that each cell within the brain is it's own processor. And within this, each DNA strand is a processor of it's own. And all of these different data processes are occuring in parallel, making the most intelligently designed and fabricated multiprocessor computer of today pale in comparison. Indeed, our design is impressive, both from an artist's standpoint, but also from a designer's point of view. (How many computers can one say is a nice part of the decorum of their office?)
When Deep Blue beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, it was designed using specialized semiconductors with a processing speed at an effective rate of 3 million million instructions per second. However, playing chess is the only thing this machine could do. What was more interesting was that this processing power is considered to be about 1/3 of Kasparov's mental processing ability. This shows that he had to divert approximately 1/3 of his prowess toward playing against the machine, which was using 100% of it's processing ability. The real evidence here is the abilty of the human brain to be trained and diverted toward specific tasks, in this case playing chess, while maintaining other important tasks without causing terminating failure (death).
David Gelernter's area of expertese is information management, parallel programming, software ensembles, and artificial intelligence. Thus he is in a qualified position to ascertain the comparison of computer 'intelligence' to that of humans. He is known for having 'predicted' the internet in a 1991 book/research paper entitled Mirror Worlds. This article and his earlier work is viewed as having an impact on the popularity and "overview" conceptual application of the internet. In mid-1993 he was seriously injured by a letter bomb sent to him by the then unidentified 'Unabomber'. After an arduous recuperation, he has returned to his work at Yale.
"The emotional subtext of human communication is crucial to human thought. It isn't a footnote. Too many computer scientists don't understand this."
--David Gelernter
Photo Credit: IBM Research
In 1999 IBM decided to build a super computer, dubbed "Blue Gene", capable of eight million simultaneous threads of computation. It will have 1,048,576 processors, each capable of one billion processes per second, and will have a foot print encompassing a little less than 2,000 square feet. And what is it that IBM hopes this computer will be able to do? Nothing more than simulate protein folding, the basis of our DNA. A four year old child has already accomplished this many times within his own cells. Yet, once again, the "Blue Gene" super-duper-computer will be able to accomplish one task. It will probably do it amazingly well, helping to modify or prove various theories about the shape of a protein being the principal determinant of its function. But it will be unable to squint if a butterfly lands on the finger, or to learn the that watermelon is a favorite fruit, or even how thrilling a water slide can be. These things would require a computing power that are immeasurably large at current (or even the proposed "Blue Gene") technology, and substantially different from known information processes.
Steven Pinker is an experiemental psychologist who has studied children learning language and visual understanding in the laboratory, such as "the ability to derive walked from walk or mice from mouse". He has developed computational models of the language learning process of a child's first language. He supports the notion that language is a part of the process of evolution and figures that learning language is an 'instinct', and has been influential in the thinking of the mind as a model of 'neural-networking'. He is hoping to arrive at a 'unified theory' encompassing how the brain functions covering topics from stereoscopic vision to romantic love, as viewed from his theory that the brain is an organ designed solely to process information. I find it interesting that he uses the work engineered when describing the different portions of the brain and their functions.
It was once thought that the nerve cells in the adult brain cannot regenerate. Then it was eventually discovered in experiments run from 1995 to 1997 by two neuroscientists, Fred H. Gage and Peter S. Eriksson, that indeed adults can and do generate new cells. In fact they can do so in an especially sensitive and delicate portion of the brain known as the hippocampus, where a persons experiences are stored. Now it's known that scientists cannot distinguish between a 60 year old neuron, and a 60 day old one, without attaching marking chemicals as they grow. It's also known that neurons which are in regular use grow disproportionately larger or more numerous according to the activity to which they are correlated. In other words, if a person taps on the end of their fingers regularly, then the finger tips can and do become more sensitive to the touch, which is reflected in the growth of neurons in the correlating area of the brain. If this same thing is done with only the right hand, but not the left, then only the right hand correlating neurons will become more activated. If only one finger, then only the associated one finger's neurons will follow. So, just as the book highlights for us, use it, or loose it. Because disuse will equally atrophy, or shrink the unused neurons. Even stored knowledge can be lost to oblivion.
If all of this wonderful news about new growth of neurons in even the adult brain is true, then why do the elderly especially, although others fall prey to this occasionally as well, fall victim to memory or other problems requiring thought processing? Neuroscientists Nora Volkow and Stony Brook have discovered that the neurotransmitter receptors, which react to dopamine (an amino acid in the brain which triggers neuron activity), become fewer and farther in between with age. It is not yet understood completely why the receptors atrophy in this way. But damage to neurons is understood in a limited way, in that a waxy and toxic 42-aminio-acid protein called ß-amyloid (Beta-anyuloid) is improperly cut from a protein (ßAPP), which normally is broken down into a protein fragment (p3), or into a harmelss 40-amino-acid ß-amyloid. Once the 42 long ß-amyloid is in the space between the cells, it causes a variety of problems, all of which are damaging to the neuron.
Also, as the tongue ages, fewer and fewer taste buds are available for the enjoyment of odor and flavor.
While these things can be measured, and detected using interesting techniques to overcome roadblocks which would endanger health and life, some things that have not yet been ascertained, and in fact may never be. How does the taste bud create the sense of taste? How does the eye reception become a 'picture' in our brain? And how do organic chemical/electrical 'circuits' create consciousness, self-awareness? This is a puzzle far more profound than the creation of the universe. And here we are: consciously aware of the very question that we cannot answer.
Misha Buric was mentioned in the Sept 15, 1982 Awake! Insight on the News. In the report he was contemplating the complexity of microcircuits (which is very obviously dated as it mentions only 17,000 transistors compared to todays millions). He was quoted as stating: "One sort of realizes our notion that we can do just about anything is incorrect. There are some things we cannot do as beautifully as nature or God has done." And also: "Realizing there is something more powerful than us, you sort of peacefully live with that."
An interesting article is the July 15 Watchtower, þþ 14-18, entitled "The Human Brain-Three Pounds of Mystery". In this article the point is mentioned that if astronomers detected a signal from space that offered the formula "2 × 3 = 6", they would immeadiately recognize the source as being undoubtedly intelligent. But this is so simple compared to the design of the brain. Could the message ever be more clear? The brain didn't 'just happen', there is an intelligent source behind it's design.
Richard F. Thompson is a psychobiologist who researches how the mammalian brain codes, stores, and retrieves memories. His laboratory has been continuously funded by Federal research grants since 1959, and has written several texts, edited several books and published over 300 research papers, ranging from Neuroscience primers to the synaptic plasticity.
Edoardo Boncinelli is an information physicist dedicated to the study of Genetics, molecular biology, human molecular genetics. He has written books and news articles (sorry, all in Italian) explaining subjects such as cloning, genetic therapy, Genome mapping, and bioethics to the layman. He points out that our free will, our conscience, our emotions, our creativity are all intertwining forces within our genetic programming, and questions how these could have evolved by evolutionary processes. That the brain is a divulging witness of incompatibility with evolutionary processes is one argumentation he presents to those with thinking minds.
"If discovered science cannot be comprehensibly explained, then it is not discovered scientific"
--Edoardo Boncinelli
Here is a web page describing the different components of the human brain. The human brain processes: memories, information, images and their components. It controls the development of language. With these the brain also processes corresponding mental contemplations. And it's not done yet, because it also includes a wide range of emotions, the capability for objective and logical thinking, and evaluation both objective and subjective. Also within it's capabilities are the development of written languages and imagined images. The mind evaluates incoming information and experiences and decides what is to be retained. All this from a process that actually looses connections once they are permantently made. Unlike human designed information storage, which require added contacts or connections in order to establish and store information, the unused synaptic neurotransmitting receptors of the brain disconnect when information is stored. This coupled with the brain's designed ability to grow new neurons even in the aged adult, gives rise to the understanding that an extremely large amount of information can be stored in the 'memory banks' of the human synaptic organ. So much so, that one would probably have to live forever to find out just how much information can be stored therein. Is anyone willing to try?
Here's a new article about how brain cells self network. Let's have a human see if they can design a computer network that can mimic that. And then try and convince the design team that they won't receive any monetary compensation, after all, "the same thing could have happened at random". (Perhaps this would be best done while wearing running shoes.)
It's interesting that the brain has such a strong capacity for language that is can remap the area of the brain toward speech through the hands (as in sign language). Using electroencephalograms (EEG) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), neuroscientists at Vanderbilt University have found the region of the brain that activates when you realize you made a mistake, when you say "oops!".
The design employed in the human brain to 'trigger' a muscle response is interesting as well. There is no direct connnection between the nerves and the muscle fibers. But instead a neurotransmitter is leaked to the muscle surface which in turn sends out an electrical current which in turn triggers a calcium release and the muscle cells now reflex. In order to prevent the muscle from remaining tense, an enzyme is released which breaks down the original neurotransmitter that was leaked from the nerve. Experiments have shown that in some instances increased neuron count has been shown to result in improved performance. Since this is true of frogs and mice (which were used in the Zamenhof experiment), then can this also be true of functions of the human body by design? It is certainly worth considering.
Even evolutionists such as Huxley admit there's a wide gulf between human design and that of lower life forms, including our supposed "nearest relatives, the apes". Here's an interesting article that succinctly covers this difference, and why it cannot be so easily explained with convoluted stories (or theories).
| Neuron estimates for the human brain break down as follows: | |
|---|---|
| telencephalic neurons (hippocampal, basal ganglia, thalamus) | 17-23 billion |
| cerebellar granule cells | 70 billion |
| neocortical neurons | 15-31 billion |
| Total counted to date: | 95-100 billion |
In some ways the most interesting part of the study of communication, is that in humans not only can certain words be programmed into our understanding, but that nuances and drift of meanings can occur. For this to be coded into a computer language would be a nightmare by programmers standards. "One" would not only mean the numeral "1", but could also mean the person who is the subject of a sentence or conversation, as in "One might decide to sit rather than stand". Or beyond this, it can be understood as a state, such as "Jehovah is one, and not three". But even once an understanding can be so clearly defined, the drift over time would have to be allowed for, without causing a severe breakdown in communication. Dust, silt, dirt, sand, gravel, pebbles, rocks, stones, cobbles, boulders are all words of the same basic premise, but define nuances in variation. Even Queen Elizabeth is an interesting experiment in communcation, as she has lived for more than a century, and her use of vowels and word pronunciation has measurably changed over time. Yet when she speaks today it is no less understood than it was three quarters of a century ago, which characterizes the communication adaptability of the human mind by design.
But more is involved in communication than just words and pronunciations. In 1992 Standord W. Gregory, Jr. used a fast Fourier transform analyzer on Larry King (a live radio broadcaster) interviews, and found that when he was speaking with people, he would adjust his voice to 'accomodate' with those he was interviewing. A nuance not normally picked up by previous analyitcal methods, but more subtley by human interaction and communications.
Sir John Carew Eccles with the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia won the 1963 Nobel Laureate in Medicine for helping to discover the "ionic mechanisms involved in excitation and inhibition in the peripheral and central portions of the nerve cell membrane". Before his death in 1997, he was considered one of the leading authorities on the human brain. He as authored over 500 scientific papers. He held the view that mental activity could cause neuronal activity by shading the odds of neurotransmitter release through quantum statistics. He was renowned for his passion in current endeavors, and not focusing on laurels. He passed away in the arms of his loving wife.
Enformy sustains the organization of all coherent systems -including the living person- and that mental activity is the map to which this organization conforms. Hence, mind organizes brain -and because the relationship is symmetrical and concomitant, brain also organizes mind.
--Donald E. Watson
Communications is the greater part of being a human. We have the printed word, radio, television, all sorts of recording mediums, and now the internet. Take any animal, no matter how well trained, and they would find little use of any of these things. A few years ago there was an online interview of a gorilla named Koko. While the amount of communication that the gorilla learned is surprising, it has yet to amount to more than an interest in food and immediate pleasure. And even much of this is based upon large amount of interpretation, assumption, and most importantly anthromorphization by the human trainer.
Jane Goodall was sent into the field in 1960 by Dr. Louis Leakey (anthropologist) to study chimpanzees. She introduced the concept of studying individual rather than group behaviors alone into the field of primatology. She now lives in Washington D.C. and has a chimp living on her property. While studying the behavior of chimps in Africa, Goodall learned the meanings of various hoots and pants within the social structure of the group. But to date, and even though she openly anthromorphizes chimpanzee personalities, has to date not educated any chimps to a level of verbal communication skills that would match even a kindergarden human child. The difference between human and animal is too great and vast.
Dr. Goodall was recently interviewed by WWF News (World Wildlife Fund) and she said that studying chimps 'has helped her to realize, perhaps more than anything else, just how different we are from them.' When asked to be specific, she said: "Humans have more sympathy. In the chimp you have sympathy between a mother and a child but you seldom find it anywhere else. Sympathy is a very, very human characteristic." After living with chimps for 22 years, she and her colleagues are still learning new things about them.
--Awake! January 8, 1985 pg. 27 "The Fascinating Chimpanzee"
A chimpanzee will beg for food from a person who is blind-folded as just as readily as they will from a sighted one, which emphasizes that an animals ability of inferred cognizance is limited. This is a major detriment to the ablity of verbal speech by them, as states, subjects, emotions, and various conceptions are the basis of the simplest of words. Even the smallest word in English, "a", requires the understanding that there is a subject being pointed to by it, as in "a square", "a donut", or "a favorite". The subject would again require the understanding of geometery, iconographical understanding, or conditional preference. It's not difficult to see that for an animal to comprehend language, much more is needed than single-dimensional comprehension.
§
Balaam's ass spoke, but only because Jehovah opened its mouth. At Numbers 22:30, the ass says, "Am I not your she-ass that you have ridden upon all your life long until this day? Have I ever been used to do to you this way?" Evidently, this animal was not young, but even with age, it had never learned to speak because it wasn't created with the ability to learn a language. In contrast, the "little" Israelite girl was young, yet still could speak with her Syrian mistress. What language she used is not stated, but the Syrians spoke Aramaic (as indicated by 2 Kings 18:26 and Isaiah 36:11), so it is possible the young girl could speak, not only her native Hebrew, but the Syrian language as well.
§
Dr. David Premack, a behavioral psychologist, developed a system of self-management (known as the "Premack Principle") which is the result of his research in the science of behavior analysis. He showed that desirable behavior can be used to bring positive reinforcement against less desirable behavior. Such as treating oneself to a day at the lake for having lost a pound of weight. By establishing that one must lose a minimum of one pound before enjoying the park, motivation is instilled to complete an otherwise undesirable task. Most people, when making a list of goals, start first with the most desireable, then after achieving success, move on to the next goal, which is more undesireable than the first. However, by reversing the order of achievement, from least desireable to most desireable, a resultant system of self-punishment is avoided, which usually leads to procrastination, or even abandonment of the goals. It converts a list of increasingly difficult motivational actions and probable failure into one of positive reinforcement and accomplishment. Some businesses use this technique to help complete goals on time by rewarding employees with desired jobs after the undesireable tasks are completed. In comparing chimpanzee manipulation of plastic symbols to represent language with children while they learn a language, he finds that the human mind is genetically pre-programmed for processing the kind of information essential to create language.
C4 box þ58
Diversity of language is a unique characteristic of the human mind. Most languages were learned by birth families, and therefore followed genetic trails as they progressed or changed over time. However, some don't follow such a simple classification. Such as invented Sign Language for the deaf, Esperanto intended to improve international communications, and Klingon for entertainment purposes. Yet the human mind has not only the capacity to comprehend these languages, but also finds that it is a need to be filled.
Here is an overall "family tree" of the socio-genetically traceable languages:
| human being | geographic division | sub-geographic division | genetic traced | sub genetic family | language family | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human | African | Mbuti Pygmy | ||||||||
| West African | ||||||||||
| Bantu | ||||||||||
| Nilotic | ||||||||||
| Bushmen | ||||||||||
| Ethiopian | ||||||||||
| Asian | North Eurasian | Caucasoid | North African | |||||||
| S.W. Asian | ||||||||||
| Iranian | ||||||||||
| European | ||||||||||
| Sardinian | ||||||||||
| Indian | ||||||||||
| S.E. India | ||||||||||
| N.E. Asian | Samoyed | |||||||||
| Mongol | ||||||||||
| Tibetan | ||||||||||
| Korean | ||||||||||
| Japanese | ||||||||||
| Ainu | ||||||||||
| Arctic | Siberian | |||||||||
| Eskimo | ||||||||||
| Chukchi | ||||||||||
| Native American | South America | |||||||||
| Central America | ||||||||||
| North America | ||||||||||
| N.W. America | ||||||||||
| S.E. Asian | Mainland & proximity | S. Chinese | ||||||||
| Mon Khmer | ||||||||||
| Thai | ||||||||||
| Indonesian | ||||||||||
| Malaysian | ||||||||||
| Philippine | ||||||||||
| Pacific Islanders | Polynesian | |||||||||
| Micronesian | ||||||||||
| Melanesian | ||||||||||
| New Guinean | ||||||||||
| Native Australian |
Even if the above languages are traced to the nth detail, nowhere would it be found where a language was taught to a non-linguistic group. The Awake! Magazine of December 22, 1990 þ 19, reported on a language of the island La Gomera, one of the seven Canary Islands, in which the inhabitants can 'speak' Silbo, which is a whistled language. Even modern words can be spoken using this language developed in antiquity. Also several west African tribes had traditionally used Vu Gbe (a drum language) to communicate complex messages over long distances. So even in areas where the spoken word is limited, human kind has found methods to develop and employ language for communication, so strong is the hard-wired drive in our design.
C4 box þ59
The human vocal tract is made up of the larynx, throat, tongue, nasal passages, etc. These components are used to create raw sounds which can vary in harmonics and timing, and produces the different vowel and consonant sounds. We can make the 'eeee' or 'ooohhh' at the same pitch, but produces a different phoneme. Even a particular vowel sound can shift to another, to make long vowel sounds, as in "at" verses "ate", or "pop" verses "pope". We can start, stop, or partially obstruct these sounds, gradually or abruptly, even these can be separate sounds of themselves, without use of the vocal chords.
No single language uses all possible phonemes, such as in English the "r" sound and the "l" sound can lead to entirely different meanings, as in "laid" and "raid". However such phonemes in Japanese, from the north end of the island to the south end, such English constants are meaningless, which gives rise to the popularly humorous "flied lice", instead of "fried rice". I don't know Japanese, but I understand that Westerners speaking Japanese have a similar humor with other phonemes, such as the use of the word "koko", which by pronunciation can have sixteen different pronunciations among which are "senior high school", "mine shaft", "filial piety", and "pickled vegatables". Or a foreigner might accidentally say "ahiru" (a duck) instead of "hiru" (a hill).
Infants can make every human phoneme sound at birth, and it is through training, experience, and education that they learn to place these in specific order to derive linguistic meaning. It is interesting that phonetic languages do not have the highest number of phonemes, but rather "click" languages, such as !kung in the Kalihari desert of Africa, stake this claim.
Here is a chart that lists a large amount of human phonemes, used in the International Phonetic Alphabet.
Dyslexia has been found to be a disorder of processing phonemes, rather than an impairment of the visual system.
C4 box þ60
Human language has, even if not yet written, always had some structure to it, in that if a language was not previously written, then it could become written after some observation and familiarizing scrutiny. (A good example of this can be found in The Watchtower of March 1, 2001 þþ 28-31, "Cyril and Methodius Bible Translators who Invented an Alphabet") However, the only thing animals have been able to record, at best and just as the book quotes from the two professors, is doodle. Elephant art goes for $1,000's at times in order to support their home preserves. Primate art often goes to promote the same. While they might make for some cute conversation pieces, the results serve no insightful understanding nor comprehension. No monkey has ever sent a written message to another.
Professors Roger S. and Deborah H. Fouts are a married couple who run the Washoe project where chimpanzees are taught sign language. Roger holds that gesturing is a kind of universal language that all of us fall back on when we can't communicate through a common spoken language, leading to the idea that language may have originated in gesture. Roger started as a laboratory assistant to Allen and Beatrix Gardner at the University of Nevada in Reno, who, after analyzing several studies to raise chimpanzees as a human child in order to test their mental limits, noted that they had never grasped human language, despite having the capacity to learn to use a fork, brush their teeth, etc... Attempting to resolve this inability, the Gardners focused, not on speech (talking was not allowed around the chimpanzees) for communication, but rather on sign language. Some birds will imitate sounds they hear, but not action. Primates tend to imitate actions, and not sounds ("monkey see, monkey do"). Unlike human children who will imitate both. Thus they concluded that perhaps the key to communicating with chimpanzees was sign language, equating it with the pointing by 'early hominids' when they grunted and pointed. Thus American Sign Language was chosen, and the goal of true two-way communication with chimps was attempted. In time, Washoe, the chimp the project is named after, learned to sign. Even during times of duress, such as while giving birth or attempts to protect her child, Washoe was able to sign. The success of this is loudly lauded in linguistic and scientific circles. However, such communication from the chimpanzees was never beyond the moment. It never accomplished more than merely replacing the warnings, grooming, or self indulgent consumption that occurs normally in the wild, from the normal motions and signals of chimpanzees living in the jungle. Such as the natural begging gesture was replaced with the ASL "come/gimme" sign. Also, although the chimps could learn signs from one another, it was also found that they would also sign to themselves, to dogs and to cats, toys, tools, even to trees.
...an ape's involuntary grunts, like human screams, are controlled by the limbic system, the most primitive part of the brain. If our power of speech evolved directly out of the limbic system we'd never be able to convey a simple message like "There's a lion standing behind you" without bursting into uncontrollable alarm calls or screams. And in fact, in the human brain, voluntary speech is not controlled by the limbic system.
--"Next of Kin", by Roger Fouts
The fact that stories of the deluge are preserved in so many cultures worldwide attests to the ability of human organism's abilty to preserve memories. However, memory serves more than just recalling history or reminiscing. Without it we could not piece together learned information in order to arrive at new conclusions.
For example, let's say a person wishes to add 53 to 39. In typical elementary fashion, 4 is added to 7, arriving at a result of 12. Thus, since only a single digit can be kept in the decimal 1's place, the 2 is kept for the result, and the 1 is carried over and added to the 5 and the 3. Thus 1 + 5 + 3 = 9, then the 9 is preserved in the ten's place of the result. Thus the total answer is 92.
However, if a person's memory did not have the capicity to correlate the carrying of the one over to the ten's column, then the result would be 82. Further, if the memory wasn't even able to resolve that the tens column and the ones column should correlate, then the answer might be 8, or 2, or 12, depending on the limits of the storing ability of the memory. While this oversimplifies the point being made in the book, I think it well illustrates it. After all, if the possibilities of the fabric of the universe could not have been stored and correlated in the memory of mankind, the place of a persons imagination, then theories such as black holes could not have been realized before they were discovered, and therefore not known to look for something that cannot be seen.
Eintein's brain was smaller than typical by body size. However his parietal lobes were one centimeter wider than usual, but he was missing the parietal operculum, which was instead filled with more lobe (Brodmann's area 40). The perietal lobes (body awareness) are associated with interpretations, mathematical thought, and imagery of movement. [Right side: cognition, information processing, pain & touch sensation, spatial Orientation, and left side: speech, and visual perception.] The parietal operculum (a bend in the cerebrum that covers the so-called Sylvian fissure, and is contained within the perietal lobes) is used in processing premotor and suplementary motor skills, such as grasping a pencil between the fingers, and recognizing facial expressions. Other areas of his brain were slightly different than normal as well. Einstein tended to think in movements and images rather than in words, which served him well in his thought experiments. He said that the concepts related to relativity came to him after he asked himself what the world would look like if he were to ride on a beam of light.
It has been determined that there are 20 rules of formulating knowledge, and that there are eight, possibly nine, different kinds of intelligence, some of which cannot be tested by standardized paper nor computerized tests. This is supported by Dr. Howard Gardner, who believes from his studies that from these basic categories different strains of intelligence can be derived.
When we go to sleep at night, during what is called Stage 1 sleep, we process what we have experienced and learned during the day and store the useful information into the hippocampus area, or biological 'memory banks'. The useless information is dumped. As any computer programmer knows, once you have assigned a value to a variable, then it's a waste of cycles, and in some cases memory, to reassign the value. For instance, if we learn that this => 1 <= represents a count of one, then why store this again every time we run across it for the rest of our lives? Later, when we experience that '1' can also represent a whole, such as a whole pie, then our memory as the unique ability to addend the knowledge of '1', rather than over write it. In this way, we remember both the original knowledge, and the new, but don't end up filling our memory up with already learned knowledge. What is interesting, is that the information sifting process takes place even for those with amnesia from damaged hippocampus. So, just as a large bank will run storage back-ups of their entire computer database daily in order to preserve the information for future processing, the brain accomplishes the same thing. If the program used by the bank required intelligent code to generate it, then what about the mind?
Professor James S. Trefil is a commentator on National Public Radio in the U.S. and has contributed articles the the Smithsonian Institute Magazine. He has also authored fifteen books and is described as a successful theoretical physicist who is also a successful at writing and communicating physics to a general audience. He is the "Mr. Science" in USA WEEKEND's column, "Ask Mr. Science". In his book entitle Are we unique? :a scientist explores the unparalleled intelligence of the human mind sets out to describe the uniqness of humans as compared to the information being learned in studies related to animal intelligence and computer design. In it he uses recent theories on the evolution and function of the brain to explain that human intelligence is not the only possible kind of intelligence, is different in kind and scale from both animals and computers. He even proposes that some day computers will be developed into a type of intelligence and consciousness, although unimaginably different than that of animals and humans.
The fact is that the education of scientists is just as narrowly focused as the education of any other group of professionals, and scientists are just as likely to be ignorant of scientific matters as anyone else. You should keep this in mind the next time a Nobel laureate speaks ex cathedra on issues outside his or her own field of specialization.
--Educators Must Accept The Difference Between `Doing' And `Using' Science, by Robert M. Hazen and James Trefil
Dr. David Chalmers is considered to be one of the leaders in the field of consciousness studies, and 'when he has time he does real work', according to him, which resulted in a published book entitled The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. In some of his studies, he ponders how a person can resolve a multiplicity of simultaneous conscious experiences, such as a red book, with birds singing, in a green tree. Each subject would entail a conscious understanding in of themselves, but not only can the human mind comprehend them all at the same moment, but in fact collectively they can result in further consciousness, such as the picture perfect spring day. He is searching for a 'unified theory' of consciousness. Chalmers has also studied Artificial Intelligence and computation, the correlation between Concieving and idea and the Possibility of it, and metaphysics.
Many computer scientists have given up on the idea of writing code that could be considered true "artificial intelligence". They realize that soon, using MRI and other technologies, humans will soon be able to map out the human brain onto silicon. However such computing abilities have little, if anything, to do with intelligence and self-awareness. Just as the turkey thermometer can mechanically give an intelligent entity, such as a human, valuable information, the mechanical properties of the thermometer will never allow for it to become artificially intelligent. No matter how well designed the thermometer, it can only produce the information for which it was designed. The same is true of a switch, such as a transistor. No matter how many transistors are thrown into the design, no matter whether they are made up of gallium arsenide or silicon, they can never produce information beyond that which they are designed to perform. Weather prediction, spatial simulations, and many other uses of advanced computer design have brought about many benefits and interesting results. But such designs are limited, and intelligence is outside of the boundaries of machinery, even if electronic, to accomplish.
Machines can produce only as much as, or less than their design allows them to produce. Human intelligence on the other hand, crosses a barrier in that we can produce much more than the sum of our parts, and in fact are doing so to the point of almost drowning ourselves out in the rapid pace of advancement. In 1970 Alvin Toffler wrote a book entitled "Future Shock", in which he described a future wherein progress would be so rapid that some people would physically be put into states of shock, unable to keep up. With today's advances in communications, gene therapy, and processing speeds, many feel that we are now living in a world where the 'future' does come faster than many can mentally deal with it. This realization was brougth to the fore for one scientist, who was studying remote indigenous tribes in west africa, when she was asked by an older man while painting poison onto the tip of his spear if she thought OJ Simpson was innocent.
Dr. Richard Restak is an admired neuropsychiatrist and author of ten books on the human brain, two of which became main selections of the Book of the Month Club. A previous book The Brain was used in a popular U.S. television PBS series. In comparing the human brain with a supercomputer, he pointed out that an electrician wiring a circuit as complex as the human brain, and if the electrician was capable of making one connection per second, at 24 hours a day, it would take over thirty million years to complete.
... I still find it difficult to believe that this three-pound mass of protoplasm with the consistency of an overripe avocado is the seat of who I am, of who we all are.
--Richard Restak, in commenting on the design of the human brain.
Picture Credit: IllusionWorks, L.L.C.
The human intellect has tapped into merely the surface of how the human mind operates. For instance, many activities of the mind operate unconsciously. One doesn't have to think why "WzTTqM" is meaningless, yet "William" is a name. The recognition is immediate and conciously uncontrolled. Once the brain has become aware, it cannot become unaware. For example "William" is understood by many as a name, and not a verb or other part of English structure. And the "WzTTqM" is meaningless at this point. But if it were revealed that "WzTTqM" was a password for a login file, perhaps, then thereafter it would be recognized, once properly filed and stored in memory.
In my brain, words act as a narrator for the visual images in my imagination. I can see the pictures in my memory files. To use a computer analogy: The language part of my brain is the computer operator, and the rest of my brain is the computer. In most people, the brain's computer operator and the computer are merged into one seamless consciousness; but in me they are separate. I hypothesize that the frontal cortex of my brain is the operator and the rest of my brain is the computer.
--Temple Grandin, Ph. D.
Professor Michael Leyton is a cognitive scientists who established a method of shape description known as process grammars which are used in radiology, meteorlogy, computer vision, chemical engineering, forensic science, linguistics, art, archaeology, and many other fields to establish a set of rules to descriptions such that the history of the shape could be established by the grammar. His studies have been applied to things such as paintings, sculptures, and architectural projects, Computational and Mathematical Aesthetics. For example, regarding architecture he states that, "symmetry is always used to erase memory from an organization, and asymmetry is always used to introduce memory into an organization. I show that these memory principles are deeply embedding in the human mind: indeed they are what allows the mind to work. It is these memory principles, I argue, that are at the basis of classical architecture's use of symmetry and the modern architecture's use of asymmetry. That is, classical architecture is aimed at removing memory, and contemporary architecture aims at creating memory." --Group Theory and Architecture
Throughout human history there have been what are considered conventional norms of society. These norms would identify behaviors, by exclusion, what would be considered anti-social. However anti-social does not always correlate with immorality. For example, eating certain kinds of food, such as rose petals, might be considered anti-social, or strange. (I understand they actually are edible, but have yet to try one) However, if the roses belonged to the persons neighbor, and he did not first request permission to consume them, then a boundary of morality has been crossed. Thus, anti-social activities generally result in puzzlement or shunning, whereas immoral activities result more often in actively pursued forms of punishment. Historically, aggressive violations of the conventional norms of society resulted most often in equal aggressive punishment. Individuals crossing these boundaries reflect the diverse ethnic, education, gender, racial, economic and social stratas of human society. And equally reflected in the majority are those who have supported and lived up to a certain attainable moral standard. As bad as this old system has gotten, and as fearful as it is in some places, we do not usually worry so much about our neighbor harming us as we do the careless driver (in progressive nations), or the approaching army and/or sniper hiding in the hillside (in nations with conflict).
So, the obvious question then, is who put these morals into human thinking? There is a general trend among all laws that promote the same sense of values, such as not murdering, respect for another's privacy, and cooperation for the good of the many. These things were not thought up by an Isaac Newton, or a Albert Einstein. Rather, they were embedded within the design of human thinking. Even with lack of training an infant can recognize many aspects of morality when observing. One father I know understood this full well when his two year old son bit him because he thought his mother was being harmed by him. Who programmed this into the child? And in another instance, when in a movie theater when the screen showed two boys bullying another, the three year old stood up and shouted "NO!" in full throat.
In the sping of the year 1900, sponge divers off of the island of Antikythera (an-tih-kith'ur-uh) in southern Greece discovered an ancient shipwreck which contained many ancient Greek artistic artiifacts. Excavations began the following year, and unrealized on board were also scientific instruments from ancient Greece, which were ignored in storage. One of them cracked open while drying. Then it became apparent, after careful xray scanning and analysis by British physicist/historian of science Derek De Solla Price, that one particular device was an ancient Greek navigational computer. It employed the Egyptian and Greek calendars, Archimedian (Greek) geometry, Seleucidian (Babylonian) astronomy, and gear mechanics to produce a hand held analog arithmetical calculation for navigational guidance. Such a device is not the result of a direct need for food, comfort, nor survival. Yet it encompassed a portion of the human mind not found in any other form of life, future needs and expectations.
It is a bit frightening to know that just before the fall of their great civilization the ancient Greeks had come so close to our age, not only in their thought, but also in their scientific technology.It is interesting to note that whenever people intend to prolong life, it is with the view of eventual immortality, or forever in mind, and not a mere extension of life. Ponce de León thought positively of eternal life in his search for the elusive "Fountain of Youth". Writer Jorge Luis Borges took a negative view of eternal life in his book The Immortal, figuring that at some point a person will have experienced everything there is to experience, and will eventually fall prey to absolute boredom. Physists Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkman have optimistically and frustratingly search for a method based purely upon the physics of the universe to understand how life could exist forever. Chinese Taoist priests sought an elixir. Thus, whether a person is an explorer, artist, scientist, religionists, or any facet of life, all have this "eternalness" encoded in their makeup. So it doesn't matter if science would be able to extend life to 200 years, a thousand years, a million years, or until the theoretical 1098 years when all black holes in the expanding universe will evaporate, it's little consolation that your experience, intelligence, the core of your very being will cease to exist with the same sterility as if you had never been. (Ecclesiastes 2:16)
--Derek J. de Solla Price, June 1959 Scientific American p.60-7
For this reason, the realist King Solomon stated that "A [good] name is better than precious ointment, and the day of death than the day of one`s birth. It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting: in that that is the end of all men, and the living taketh it to heart." (Ecclesiastes 7:1,2, Darby) Because we can fathom an eternal existance, which by our own power is unattainable, the reality of death should shock us into realization. A realization that we should look to:
Professor Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and yet another writer attempting to explain Darwinian evolution. He is described by Amazon.com as an "in-your-face atheist in the witty British style". He explains in one book how natural selection generates complex organs, including one organ in particular, the eye. So for him to admit the statement quoted in the book is a rather large hole in the evolutionary theory, a fact so large and important that it required an explanation, of which he had none. In 1802 William Paley published a book entitled, Natural Theology, which pointed out logically that just as finding a watch would lead you to conclude that a watchmaker must exist, the complexity of living organisms proves that a Creator exists. In The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design Dawkins argues against Paley stating that, "all appearances [are] to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way... it is the blind watchmaker." He even wrote a computer program to simulate the process he describes. I wonder... if he'll let me have both the book and the program for free, since the evidence of their existance doesn't prove that anyone wrote it.
William H. Calvin is a theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, and author of nine books. In his book The Cerebral Code he proposes (yet another) new theory about how Darwin's evolutionary process could operate in the brain. He figures that by arranging information in hexagonal multilayered rows and columns that information can be stored and processed by associative cortex. He proposes many things such as the theory that "the abrupt climate changes superimposed on the ice ages may have helped conserve an inefficient ape variant that happened to be a jack-of-all-trades, able to adapt to new diets within a generation" describes what might have triggered the change in cortextual function. But it's not mentioned how such a change could have occured at the cellular level while maintaining a useful functional design. He even offers that the unity of our consciousness is an illusion, and that the thought that wins is, well (how original), the one with the largest neural patchwork and ready access to output pathways. In other words, even in the functioning of our minds according to Calvin, it is the fittest thought that survives. Thus, even in his thinking, there is a huge leap from the brains of animals to that of humans. A leap so large that even with his faith in evolution, he to admits is vast.
I want to be cremated so people won't come worship at my bones.On April 17, 1955 Albert Einstein died as a result of an aortic aneuryism in Princeton Hospital. Even though he knew of the condition, he refused corrective surgery. He understood and recognized the power within the human design to render worship, and he recognized clearly that none of that belonged to him. Thus, even though he could not control the intellectual rights of his likeness in commercial enterprises and quasi-scientific endeavors during his day, he died using his intellectual powers to prevent opportunism from becoming worship.
--Albert Einstein, when his death was immanent.
Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe.
--Albert Einstein
While appreciation for various forms of art can vary, what is constant is that unless someone is struck with debilitation of the brain, such as Hepatitis C, all are able to appreciate artistic expression. For example, the male peacock fans it's tail during mating season, and at times to scare away predators. While this tail display might attract a female peacock, it has not been known to be appreciated by an eagle, or a finch. Yet, as humans we find beauty in the display, which provides no other benefit to us other than personal viewing pleasure. Such things are not a requirment of survival nor function of the human organism. So why do we have such an ability? Perhaps someone who can also appreciate the beauty of such things as the peacock's tail feathers wanted to share the beauty, which is another source of pleasure not required to function.
While the human mind can fathom the existance of objects we have never touched nor felt, no not even seen, another subject fathomed by billions throughout history is the concept of a deity, god. And the prevalence of this desire stands as empiracle evidence that such has been hardwired into our brains. And just as the enjoyment of artful expression is not a necessity for survival as a biological organism, this desire was designed into us for some purpose. There is not a function of the human body that is purposeless, and neither is this inborn trait of worship without it's engineered purpose. However, just as human functions can be misguided or misused, such as the inappropriate use of a persons formulative powers to rob a bank, so it with worship. Everything has been worshipped, from men to their ideas and concepts, from ants to stars, nothing has failed to become an object of worship. Fortunately this includes the One who does deserve the worship, Jehovah God. And those who have discovered this rare alignment of understanding enjoy prospecting and sharing the 'gold vein' of unending blessings.
C. Stephen Evans is a Dean for Research and Scholarship at Calvin College and the author of many articles in philosophical and psychological journals, and has written several books, such as Subjectivity and Religious Belief and Kierkegaard's "Fragments" and Kierkegaard's "Postscript". He feels that there are two basic characteristics would be found in any evidence that God exists: 1) That it would be abundant and that any layman could grasp it, and 2) that it would be relatively easy to dismiss if one chose to do so in order to avoid "less than noble reasons" for serving God, should one be forced to acknowledge His existance. He holds that the same standards for proof held in non-religious realms should be applied as well to this, as some hold unreasonably high standards for proof of God's existance, when they don't hold such high standards for accepting proof in other subjects or areas of knowledge. He also holds that a person cannot be 'argued' into believing in a faith anymore than a person can be argued into loving them romantically. Rather, reason is the method properly applied in this instance. Although he does not agree with the 'Jesus Seminar' efforts to basically re-write the 'historical Jesus' (they relied heavily on apocryphal material), he seems to appreciate the flurry of interest this creates within traditional churches.
Sir Alister Hardy is a Professor at Oxford University, and was first reknowned for his study of ocean plankton, then later established The Alister Hardy Religious Experience Research Centre in the 1960s in order to apply scientific methods toward the study of God's existance, focusing on mystical encounters. He concludes from his studies that mysticism falls into three general categories: 1) Theistic [seeing or feeling the presence of a higher power] 2) Monistic [pantheism, merging as 'one' with the grass, or earth, etc.] and 3) Mystical Unions [sense of completion when 'unioned' with elements of theistic or monistic experiences] And Visions [element of seeing or understanding beyond normal]. Although I don't find reference to this, it seems to me that he is at the very least a borderline Gnostic, or at least makes attempts to study this.
Evolutionists, if they ignore the fact that it took their collective intelligence to replicate such, can in some limited, over-simplified ways, account for the unity of the goal behavior found in ants, such as in food collection, or the unity of birds in flight. Even the stripes grown in angelfish can be rendered into a complex formula, but these explanations do not account for the complexity of their existance, or as the book so correctly points out, how the electro-chemical processes of the human mind creates consciousness awareness.
The media if fascinated with mystery. Sometimes they delve into the paranormal as with the X-files, or The Mysterious Origins of Man, and Alien Autopsy. Other times it's an attempt to explain science to the masses, and end up feeding mis-information instead. But that's "okay" with them, because it allows for another show later, culling the mental feeding frenzy toward them for greater points at the media polls. Even shows promoting conspiracy theories and skeptitisism about withheld information can be popular. However, such fascination by the public has been measured to actually impair an individual person's ability to think critically, or to be able to clearly process information (Scientific American, The Media's Eerie Fascination Jan. 1997, page 100-101 printed edition). In an effort toward profit, the line between entertainment and information is smeared, further disabling the public from drawing accurate conclusions. Some examples of long held beliefs of the public which are not accurate are:
"We note first that science is a human endeavor--a human invention that's operated by humans within human social institutions. This is so obvious, it goes without saying. And here we encounter a serious problem in normal science--not saying it. If we don't address the humanness of science, we can't recognize the emotional and cognitive processes that resist scientific revolutions. Nor can we appreciate how our motives, impeded by our limitations, foster our clinging to misleading mythologies."
Introduction to the Theory of Enformed Systems, by Don Watson & Berney Williams
Scientists who support evolution suppress the notion of teaching the concept of intelligent design in science curricula because the components of such "are not testable nor falsifiable", and that using God to explain phenomena that are not yet well understood is unacceptable. On the other hand, scientists who support intelligent design or creationism respond that evolutionary process is also "not testable or falsifiable", and that using unsupported sweeping stories to explain phenomena that is difficult to believe could occur without intelligent intervention is unacceptable. A February 2001 Gallup poll suggests that more US citizens favor a theory of creation rather than evolution, and according to Gallup this stance has not changed significantly since they began polling this subject in 1982.
|
C4 box þ 72
Albert Einstein was able to translate many aspects of physics into the German language. His favorite translation of his publication of "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" into English was that by Robert W. Lawson.
The most important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.Although it is a paradox by human intellect, Einstein was able to define that a photon is both a wave and a particle at the same time. Paul Dirac explained this apparent paradox of wave/particle duality, by identifying a wave with the superposition of an indefinite number of particles. (Remember my animated gif illustrating super, or dual positioning of a particle in C2 þ 17 ¶ 1 to þ 18 ¶ 3?) For example, if it is understood that a wave shows the probability of the location of a particle, then when the wave is collapsed through measurement (remember that any external influence on superpositioning would prevent the superpositioning, thus only one position could result, and a measurement requires an external influence, thus the superpositioned particle/wave would collapse), then the particle would be found at random points along the "wave" path. Through the conclusions drawn by Einstein and Dirac, scientists are now able to take this knowledge and demonstrate this. One example is that light photons have actually been captured, fondled, then released. Without the previous understanding established through theory, it would have been an indefinite search to arrive at such technical ability. For a certainty it is a multidimensional comprehension that exceeds, by geometric multplicity, a biological organism's requirements for survival and existance. The desire and ability to learn and understand exceeds that of any other biological creature known to exist, and demands a valid explanation by any theory and proof of our existance.
--William Bragg
Will theorize quantum algorthmic multiplicity for food.
Back to Top of Page | Back to Chapter 3 | Next to Chapter 5
Copyright © 2001