Something for(from) nothing?

I should have perhaps extended my earlier point that evolution favours 'nice' babies , but in later life evolution also favours the alpha creatures in the pack - They don't get there by being altruistic all the time. A specialist in the area opined to me once that a baby screaming murderously for food is just that - if it had the means it would do anything to get what it wants. It will try smiley face first , but then....(babies don't do self pity or empathy). We are all born with the wiring for either behaviour - society tries (at least a caring one does) to encourage the empathy and discourage the selfishness . I can't think of many (if any at all) communities that achieve this. The human curse for being sentient , is knowing it's Janus personality.

That's why Billy Mummy in the 50's scared the hell out of a whole country of adults when he appeared on the Twilight Zone as the god-child.

Is there a link on this ?- I found a whole lot of wierd stuff looking.

I agree to all this, but don't want to.

It's a horrible thought for sure Ken. Recognising it gives us power to try and deal with it though.

evil is when the desires of the body are stronger than the brains other half, soul. good is when caring and reason (knowedge and love) are stronger than the brains other half, body. Mankind constantly struggles to balance these two.

Someone once said that man is part ape and part angle. I think that doesn't speak well of apes. On the other hand...

Knowledge is power.

Power corrupts.

Study hard, be evil!

To say, for example that a man is made up of certain chemical elements is a satisfactory description only for those who intend to use him for fertilizer.

"The general laws of nature which govern and determine all phenomena are nothing but the eternal decrees of God which always entail eternal truth and necessity." -Spinoza

Im not sure of that angle thing? just kidding. I could only imagine that God posseses all knowledge and all love. We are simply here to learn to love and love to learn. The more knowedlge and love we have, the closer to God we become. yes, become. Yes, knowedge is power and if God has all knowledge, he has all power. If you truly had all power what else would or could you want? love. If you had all love what else would/could you want? power. Power corrupts mankind due to lack of a balancing of love, which equals greed. Study hard, love all and be good humans.

Thank you DavidRheault.

"Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong."-1 Cor.16:13

me?

lol...yup,I thank you!

"Our world may be nothing but the order that we...are shaping into a cosmos. The more we refine and perfect ourselves as instruments, the better the cosmos that we are winning out of chaos will be."-B.Berenson

There is one rational God. One rationality governing the entire cosmos is now one of the most basic beliefs and articles of faith of science. Built into the rationality of science and the structure of knowledge are the assumptions that the world is rational, consistent and that all phenomena in it can be understood in consistent terms and follow consistent laws that are accessible to reason. From atoms to galaxies, from dreams to machines, from human behavior to lightening strikes...deepening and widening this single understanding is the work of science.

And that rationality doesn't give a rat's-ass whether you and I wind up as a grease-spot on the hind end of existence!

Hue Hefner's estate?

I wish that were me!

Being English , and thus I presume part angle , I can concentrate on being an ape.

I told you, that's how I wound up "Selling my soul to Santa!!!"

You're a hoot, man.

Ape?

I have two kids, and I find it hard to look at either one as an inherent sinner. When I see a one-year old, I cannot help but see that kids have an inherent desire to reach out and please others.

This is true - It makes evolutionary sense for a child to be appealing and want to please. Dislikable cave-man babies don't get fed as much.

Original sin is religious twaddle used to shackle people.

When Descartes drew a sharp line between matter and spirit he separated scientists from philosophers. Scientists took charge of matter and philosophers dealt with spirit. This was the first time this had been done. The split has to be healed before real progress can be made. The physicists who made the great advances past the see-touch realm were as much philosophers as scientists and one can't separate their physics from their metaphysics.

He, Galileo and Newton all regarded God as a kind of chief mathematician of the universe. 'Geometry existed before the creation, is coeternal with the mind of God, is God himself' -Koepler

Aquinas believed that if the twin approaches of revelation and faith on the one hand, and observation and reason on the other, were both applied to the same problem, and were each used correctly, they would come to the same conclusion.

...regarded God as a kind of chief mathematician of the universe...

This indeed was the core of church dogma (as expressed by William Paley), in the sense that creation could not have been so deep and complex, without a divine super-minded architect being there, prior to the act of creation. Until the mid nineteenth century (Faraday, Maxwell and co.)

This publication, from an ethologist, may light an alternative route, to this "inevitable" mentioned consequence.

The split has to be healed before real progress can be made.

On my optimistic days, I think that this split is being healed. However, on other days, I'm convinced that things are moving in the opposite direction. The US has become increasingly polarized, with the Christian Right on one side, and secularists (as well as moderates of all religions) on the other. We scream: "There is only a scientific explanation!" and "There is only a religious explanation!"

On the other hand, I often think of the Beach Boys song: "I'm Pickin up Good Vibrations." It was popular at about the same time as when we started to really, reliably, be able to pick up good brain vibrations. What was once quite ethereal, is now common science.

We all admire elegant designs in which the simplest device can solve a complex problem. If creation were by intelligent* design then we'd expect to see simplicity rather than incomprehensibility, wouldn't we?

I'd like to agree with Aquinas. But "correctly" is a key word. If "correctly" means to use faith in God* to guide us to the revelation that we have free will and intelligence... and that we can use reason to "figure things out," then I agree. On the other hand, if it is "revealed" to us the the earth was created in 7 days, and we are to have "faith" in that as truth, then it's unlikely that that type of faith will ever converge with science (or with other religions).

To a large extent, I see this all as comparable to damped oscillations. At least, we are no longer burning scientists and dissenters at the stake. (We use car bombs, instead. ) If we'd just replace the shock absorbers on this buggy, we could more quickly converge on something agreeable to all.

*whatever that means.

** God = Good = common good

Aquinas wrote for one reason only: to prove the existence of God using logic. I suppose the logic he used at the time made sense, mostly Aristotelian. But it just doesn't stand up to today's knowledge and logic.

Also, it's not just the Christian right against secularists, it's more like Evangelical Christians against "everyone" else, including other Christians. Just why this form of absolutist religion plays so well in "Candy-Land" is beyond me. But, then again, they like their morals simple. "Yup! Yup!"

Just why this form of absolutist religion plays so well in "Candy-Land" is beyond me. But, then again, they like their morals simple.

There are so many who thrive on following an authority. I suppose not having to make your own choices, and take responsibilty for them, is appealing. It renders one child like.

That's when you wind up with this guy for your lord and savior.

"Todays sermon: Who to Smite."

Well, he did give us all, the Autobahn and the Beetle.

Not like completely void of legacy or heritage...

It was us who kept nit-picking him for killing a few millions: Germans, Jews, Russians, Gypsies, you name it.

He only did his best, you know. It was just that his followers disappointed him, eventually. Who could you trust in those days?

How many of us can honestly say that we did our best?

Was Stalin or Pol Pot any worse? Any better? We need to have some historical perspective.

And they say "evil is within". What do they know?

Isn't evil "without"?

Without what?

Good question.

Not like completely void of legacy or heritage...

George Bush has a tough act to follow in this regard. As Norman Mailer recently said: "He's not quite smart enough to be "really" evil." Unfortunately for him, his plan to bomb all three of of his "axis of evil" countries will probably never come to fruition. But, at least, he has sowed the seeds of terrorism against the US in a way unmatched by any other US president. That was his intent, right? Only time will tell if he will have matched the evil of a Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin. I hope not.

Ken, I think I can see your point: "The road for doom is clear, the question being: will he follow?" O.K.

I would draw the imaginary line, however, between "a follower of a path", be that religion, ideology, whatever, and "a follower of his own imaginary destiny", be it delusional, concrete, whatever.

The key word here, I think, is "Ego". Does the leader sees himself a follower of some vision, a servant if you will, or a follower of his own being, a god-like, someone to follow, if you like.

I will agree that such a definition will be a hard call in any case, including "you-name-whoever-you-like", because it's nearly impossible to look into someone's heart, but then again, their deeds will become their legacy, and even this, only in hind sight.

Tough call, no doubt. That's why you cast your own destiny, every time you enter the election booth. Even Hitler was elected, only then posed to abolish election.

"my problem is not that George W. Bush wants to be President. My problem is that he wants to be the last President!"

-Unknown

..."my problem is not that George W. Bush wants to be President. My problem is that he wants to be the last President!"...

Only time will tell if he [G.W. Bush] will have matched the evil of a Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin. I hope not.

I don't like Bush either (and I am definitely not a Republican), but the above has to be one of the most asinine statement I have ever seen!

I suppose the statement has a certain asinine quality, but it is obviously intended to be provocative (of both thought and conversation).

The death toll estimates in Iraq (from the war and the ensuing violence it created) range from 350,000 to 750,000, with the Lancet study saying 655,000. Certainly, that figure alone is not sufficient to put Bush in the class of a Hitler. (And of course, like Hitler, Bush was elected -- so all of us have to accept the responsibility for these deaths: those who actually voted for him, as well as those of us too apathetic to really work hard at getting someone more reasonable elected.) But, to put the numbers in perspective, we've killed about twice the number killed by Idi Amin; even by itself, that is cause for concern.

But Bush's stated intent is to deal with Iran and North Korea in (we can only assume) similar ways. Although Iran cannot now launch an atomic attack against us, Korea can. The leaders of both Iran and Korea are, arguably, less mentally stable than Saddam (himself pretty wacky). So, if Bush follows the preemptive strike doctrine laid out by Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc in 1990 (with the less obscene, edited version released in 1992), then we risk a major conflagration. Which is why I say only time will tell.

I suppose the statement has a certain asinine quality, but it is obviously intended to be provocative (of both thought and conversation).

I can certainly understand that many people have sincere concerns about the policies of the Bush administration, and of course about the war. But why try to start a debate about *politics* in a forum supposedly dedicated to *engineering and science*? And in a thread about perpetual motion machines?! How obscure. Almost seems like you fear taking the debate into one of hundreds of forums where politics would be on-topic. Why not take it to where you will find many well-informed debating partners to challenge your provocative statements? (instead of posting to a thread where *people specifically subscribed to read about a science topic*). I joined CR4 just a couple of months ago. So Ken please tell me: do you think that the majority of members here would mind the fact that the majority of the approximately 200 posts to this thread have absolutely nothing to do with the original topic? How do I unsubscribe from this thread?

do you think that the majority of members here would mind the fact that the majority of the approximately 200 posts to this thread have absolutely nothing to do with the original topic

It seems to happen all the time , that threads veer from the original question. I think that is because a point is reached where most thoughts have been said , and people like to progress to other areas much as they would in normal conversation. I can understand your annoyance , since there is an excellent idea going on elsewhere ( you will know what I mean ). It is a fact of life that people will have a different interpretation of what is 'topical' etc . We have to seek and give understanding of this fact in equal measure. The title of the thread , was such that it was bound to go off at a tangent sooner than most threads (somebody other than me might have suggested that this whole topic be discussed in a more appropriate forum ). I hope you see the point I am trying to make , and don't become unduly irritated by the way in which threads such as this develop.Kris

So how come you never showed up at my "Baby Corn" link?

Yeehaw! Baby corn and fuzzy-logic for everyone!!!

To unsubscribe from a thread, just follow the instructions in the emails you receive.

As you poke around this forum more, you'll see that threads start out on topic, and then, as little of news comes up, the thread starts to drift. For example, in this one, the idea of perpetual motion machines was more-or-less dismissed early on. Then, issues of gullibility were raised. Then we wrote a little about how gullibility can lead to authoritarian regimes. Yuval brought up some related points re Hitler and Pol Pot. His post was surprisingly positive re Hitler. You might say provocative. One could wonder: "Where do we draw the line on 'evil.'" Nowhere in recent history has the word "evil" had so much airplay as it has with Bush and his "axis of evil." etc. Is Bush himself evil? Am I evil? Are you? All are fair questions.

If you want to police the drift of threads, you are welcome to try to do so*. I suspect that few will listen, though. I think many would take your insinuation that the people here are incapable of debating politics (just a bunch of dumb engineers?) to be insulting. I have found many of the people here insightful, and quite capable of ignoring any posts they find off-topic.

Why not take it to where you will find many well-informed debating partners to challenge your provocative statements?

It seems that my only "debating partner" on this issue is you -- although calling you a partner may be a stretch, and I have no idea if you are well-informed or not. (However, your inability to find out how to unsubscribe from a thread might suggest that you are not terribly well-informed.)

So Ken please tell me: do you think that the majority of members here would mind the fact that the majority of the approximately 200 posts to this thread have absolutely nothing to do with the original topic?

As far as I can tell, CR4 seems to be growing. You'd have to survey the members to see what they "mind". Personally, I enjoy the things that appear off topic to some. This thread could be finished in one reply "No, perpetual motion machines do not work," if we are to think entirely inside the box. For me, it is the stuff outside the box that is of interest. For others, who knows?

Perhaps, in developing a strategy for saving your own energy for productive pursuits, you might consider this: Suppose you arrive at a nude beach, and find yourself offended by the nudity. Would it be better to avert your eyes, or to shout at the bathers?

*(I might suggest starting at the Wacky Science thread, which is still going strong after 500 posts. The imaginative can see a connection, and great entertainment value, throughout those posts. The unimaginative will see 475 off-topic posts.)

If you want to police the drift of threads, you are welcome to try to do so*.

No, I have no interest in policing anyone -- just trying to understand why people tolerate random digressions that might undermine the overall usefullness of this forum. But if this is the common practice here, then so be it.

I think many would take your insinuation that the people here are incapable of debating politics (just a bunch of dumb engineers?) to be insulting.

I did not mean to insinuate that "people here" are *incapable* of debating politics, but rather that they do not want to do the hard work of defending their arguements in front of a critical audience. And I did not refer to the "people here", but rather to the very few specific individuals making the provocative remarks (who are probably not very representative of the general membership).

It seems that my only "debating partner" on this issue is you -- although calling you a partner may be a stretch, and I have no idea if you are well-informed or not. (However, your inability to find out how to unsubscribe from a thread might suggest that you are not terribly well-informed.)

Yes, it would definitely be a stretch to call me a debating partner since I have absolutely no intention of discussing politics in an engineering forum. And my one-sentence reaction to your asinine remark does not constitute a debate. Judging from the lack of responses to the provocative statements, this is not a very good place to try to instigate political debate, eh? Maybe most members would rather not encourage off-topic rants here. And my "inability" to find out how to unsubscribe is irrelevant to how informed I am about other matters (a ridiculous insinuation). I put "inability" in quotes because I know that I could easily find out how to unsubscribe (I had not felt the desire to unsubscribe until I saw this thread). I asked that rhetorical question in order to emphasize the point that I found the multitude off-topic posts annoying. But enough said. I won't ask or complain about the off-topic content again. I'll just learn to recognize when the thread has "reached the point of dimishing returns", and abandon it, at the risk of missing out on on-topic messages posted later.

I'd like to add one final thought to this sub-issue . When threads go off-topic , some very interesting aspects of Engineering can emerge. Little known issues , that a poster might otherwise not have bought to general attention. I have followed some threads and discovered facts (completely unrelated to the topic) that were very informative to me . Another point is that if a thread goes 'stale' , continued off-topic chat can keep a thread active increasing and increase it's chance of revival in it's originally intended manner. I have not looked in detail in all the ways of posting a question , but perhaps you could keep some degree of order better by putting a question in blog format. I'm not sure , but this may be of future help.

Did you know that he tortured little animals when he was a kid?

No value judgement intended (of course, I have my personal beliefs), it's just that in the previous post, if you bale from your own responsibility regarding your values, people like these are more likely to step in and give what you want - a direction.

...people like these are more likely to step in and give what you want - a direction...

A sobering thought.

Ken, you wrote:

We all admire elegant designs in which the simplest device can solve a complex problem. If creation were by intelligent* design then we'd expect to see simplicity rather than incomprehensibility, wouldn't we?

Actually it is the opposite. The simplicity of "everything" is that God made/is making the universe with an infinite number only one thing. What we "see" is all the possibilities of that one thing. All the combinations, configurations and conglomerations of just one thing. all based on simple electromagnetics. The first part of your statement leads to the answer.

The universe is far more simple than science has yet been able to figure out.

Regardless of whether this split occurred during the time of Descartes, is somewhat immaterial. Scientists have always practiced their mysticism away from the eyes of the public. And theologians have always practiced their science. Both Einstein and Hawking were guests of the Vatican for symposiums on astrophysics. The Jesuits really dabble into the sciences, especially, those concerning human nature... Much to the angst of the Catholic Church.

Aquinas was a bit early for me, though. "Every cause has to have and effect." Uh, not in the quantum realm. And roses didn't look the way they did because of the "blood of Christ and the crown of thorns."

My School Physics teacher was quite happy with the explanation of atoms being the way they were :"..because that's the way God made them ". That can accommodate all parties. It can be tagged on the end of any atomic description.

That can accommodate all parties.

Unless those parties might like to know how things work, I suppose. "Because that's the way God made it or (intended it)" can be the explanation for everything. It's an explanation that leaves many a bit thirsty. What made God? What is God? Was it Allah or Vishnu?

The statement doesn't preclude anyone from investigating further . If one chooses to do so , one can still split atoms at CERN or wherever and still believe the statement. God and hard fact are not mutually exclusive (unless someone wants to think so , in which case they believe in neither . The Universe can be seen as 'God'. Faith is another matter. In my interpretation anyway , because my belief either way has no interest for what others think. They can believe as they wish , as long as they don't try and force me to follow. Belief in a scientific or religious explanation should be free from outside influence . I'm not going to show my hand on this one too much because it's irrelevant to anybody but me. You pay your money , you take your choice I guess . Suffice it to say I dislike people knocking on my door selling .

...The Universe can be seen as 'God'...

Well said.

My own personal problem, is that I live in a culture, which reveres man's limited, cruel, sometimes incompetent, common-sense, as "god the almighty", while we all know that it is we, who pick "his" (it's?) fallout, and ill-handled daily affairs. What was this "god" ever able to create, besides myth, hypocrisy, stress, damage, despair, destruction, and confusion?

For me - God is nature's creator, in no relative terms. In that sense, God is almighty, because every little atom and every galaxy, is both Him, and His creation.

For me - it's all about What's what. Not what's called what.

Certainly not what appears to seem to pretend to make as, this or that.

I believe, we are all very tired of this 20,000 years old lie.

Amen

"...fore his eye is on the sparrow..." Sure didn't do the sparrow much good!

What if we're not really at the top of the spiritual totem-pole? What if some other species in the Universe are more evolved than we and God says to them, "I put you in dominion over all these creatures." and we just happen to one of them?

I'm just saying that if God talked to us, it doesn't necessarily rule out that he was also talking to another species that were ahead of us. I'm sure at one time he talked to the sheep and the goats and the cattle and the lizards and the...

So you worship the material Universe as god?

You know I like stirring the pot !

'God created man in his own image' . How about the other way round ?

Dog created man in his own image.

Of course, in Hollywood, image is everything.

Hats off to ya ! My alter-ego missed hs chance .

The only difference is I'm perfectly comfortable entertaining the idea that I'm nothing from something.

I think you sneakily try to encourage the appearance. As Col. Nathan Jassup quipped - "walk softly and carry an armoured tank division , I always say"

You goblin you.

As if the Big-Bang was really conceived in Holywood...

It could work for me... If I was a creationist, that is

...How about the other way round ?...

You just drove my point home.

For me, it is very clearly the other way round. So to for many serious students of religion. But for others, such talk is blasphemy. In the US, 80% of people believe in the creation story as written in the Old Testament. For most of these people, I suspect that giving any thought to whether or not this makes sense would be anathema to their beliefs. One must not question one's own beliefs.

There are those who would argue, then, that "beliefs" and "belief systems" are meaningless. Conjure up whatever you will, and then latch onto it, and make it inviolable. The voices in your head are God.

To me, selecting a religion without studying and weighing many, is irresponsible. To others, to weigh religions in this way is a sin.

All of which would be just fine, except that public policy is decided by people blind to the beliefs of others, and therefore, the ramifications of one belief system are forced upon others.

...The voices in your head are God...

Common sense?

...So you worship the material Universe as god?...

Yes! - You may now crucify me for it!

Now a bit more seriously:

I think my thread expresses just about what I think of the term God.

I may not be understood exactly as I intended, but for this discussion, I think it will just do:

If "they" say that God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, they better meant it, otherwise they're just fooling innocent people.

"Help! I'm being suppressed!"

Actually, physics is very good at providing the "how," but not so good at providing the "what." That's why I find Einstein's work so refreshing, he provided a lot of the "how" and a fairly good bit of the "what." For example, he not only described gravity, he told us what it was. Now that's cool!

"You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter.Pray do not ascribe to me that notion to me: for the cause of gravity is what i do not pretend to know, and therefor would take more time to consider of it..gravity must be caused by some agent acting constantly according to certain laws ; but whether this agent be material or immaterial i have left to the consideration of my readers"

I know you said Mr E , but Newtons quote is cool.

We used to think that this condition was caused by a small toad or dwarf living in the bowels. However, our modern scientific knowledge tells us that this is a bodily imbalance of the vapors.

I think you need a bleeding.

You forget the Spermatic homunculi . It could be the cause of the phrase 'dick-head'

Relax , just me joking vermin. . Just think of the red-necks in a bar room brawl , being confused by the homunculi swimming about. Must be very confusing.

Are you unwanted electromagnetic energy running through a choke?

I sort these posts chronologically, so I puzzled for a second re what on earth this might mean. Fun.

Nice one ! I had vermin down as 'fuzzy logic' , but yours is better. Your constant wardrobe changes have caused me to now think of you as 'The Cameilian'

What are you, the coherency police?

We must have standards.

Yes we do. Shame on me!

I'll go face the corner now, for the next five minutes.

Sorry. I forgot. My brother's dog ate my memory.

Your usage of the word 'we' neglects that Kris may have used the word in the sense of the 'royal we'. Deducing that Yuval should experience acute self-awareness- disorder , otherwise known as SAD is an illogical thought sequence suggesting a need for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.The emotive utterance 'Sorry' has no contextual place in this discourse without the clarification components 'I am' or 'you are'. 'I forgot' as a stand alone sentence is non-computable - The Carbon-unit known as Yuval may be undergoing traumatic paging/thrashing. Confirmation is found is units sibling's canine eating malfunction.Defragmentation is scheduled and memory will be purged.

'I forgot' as a stand alone sentence, relies on the assumption that there is an intelligent life-form to counterpart this otherwise to-be-defined monologue.

This somewhat uninformed assumption, relies on the premise that such an intelligent entity, is to deduct the rest from previously expressed information segments, whoever loosely connected, or reciprocally referenced.

Carbon-unit I am. One does not argue with their creator about their consequential form. So given, and grateful for.

However,

What are you, the CBT police? I mean, I never even hinted that I'm perfect (which I am, you know), in any aspect relevant here, but you (!), you replied as if I was hinting that I am. Am I?

What are you, the perfection police? There is no such thing, you know

I was standing in for 'MR logic' to lampoon our assumptions in life and communications failures. Did you really not see that ? I tender profound apologies.

Why waste a perfectly good apology, on the likes of me?

What are you, the "..." police?

I think a healthy zap, would render me free of "what are you"'s, which seem to get stuck there, as a mantra.

Never mind that, I think I need to replenish my dwindling repertoire.

Why waste a perfectly good apology, on the likes of me?

I didn't

Profound: Fr profund, from L profundus , from pro foreward , and fundus bottom.

Thank you Chambers Dictionary ISBN 0 550 14000 X

Ha !

Catching Monkeys is fun - let them see you put the treat in the hole , and he wants it so bad he can't let go when you grab him. Te -he -he -he he

That's when the monkey shreds you like an old carpet.

Vicious ^£$*/)(*)(^_s when it comes down to it . Loads of people have lost arms to caged chimps etc. OK chimps 'aint monkeys , but furry critters (yourself excepted) are deceptively cute. Kind of explains us "Naked Apes".

You are not, I know this because...

I AM

What, perfect, or the CBT police?

The truth may be worse Yuval. My lips are sealed.

Kris - you behave properly. I AM after all your boss's boss....

Yuval - try reading a few Jewish tracts...

...try reading a few Jewish tracts...

They excommunicated me, ever since I publically denied being part of any religion, so I can't even get access to written material concerning civilised manner in public. As if...

In private, you know, I was left to fend my chimp-like manners as a last resort.

Pocket-Balling, Head and Armpit Scratching, then whiffing, you know, being my usual self.

I heard on the news this morning that chimps have over 30 hand signals that they use for communication (such gems as: "I want food" and "I want sex" were the examples given). This is twice the number of vocal sounds that they use.

This is apparently incontrovertible proof that humans began communicating using gestures rather than vocal sounds or speech. Judging by the actions of many fellow road users, I'd say we already had the proof!

Perhaps you could write/draw the first chimp-human dictionary?

...Perhaps you could write/draw... No need. Koko the Gorilla, and Hananya the Bonobo chimp, already acquired more than fifteen hundred words each. By comparison, the North Sinai Bedwin Arabs, merely have a three hundred word vocabulary.

Too far fetched? It's probably a cultural-dependant trait. Speach, that is.

P.S, if you keyword Wikipedia to search for "hand-signaling apes" you are likely to result with: Alex Trebek (relevance 2.1%) and James Brown (relevance 1.5 %), to mention just a few.

I think the point is that the chimps in the study mentioned this morning were all wild chimps, with no (little) human contact, rather than human reared primates. The two you cite show beyond doubt that the rest of our relatives possess the capacity to learn to communicate. We can only presume that they lack the stimulus or necessity to do so more fully in their natural/normal environment.

Does this all explain modern day teenagers if we sustitute 'teenager' for 'chimp'

On a similar note , if dolphins had evolved quicker than us with legs and arms the world might be very different.'Slow and steady wins the race' perhaps. I hope dolphins and cockroaches never converge to a single lifeform (Sorry Gorden Brown).

Dolphins were once land animals that followed an evolutionary path back to the ocean. What do they know that we don't.

As far as sign language is concerned, linguists have studied the major "archaic" sign languages and find that they all contain some fifty hand positions in common. The interesting thing about that is the mouth and tongue go through some fifty positions to make most modern lingual sounds. And, not only are the hand and mouth parts located fairly closes to each other in the human brain, but talking or gesturing make both of these regions light up under PET scans. Ook! Ook!

With fewer words , a language needs bigger composite ones to expess individual concepts. Maybe that's why German has some hugely long words. Signing works fine for communication even though oral language has huge variety . Interesting that we still use metaphor a lot - Just look at some of the wacky conversation on cr4 (!) . If the WW11 film is faithful , Navaho use this a lot (?).

...Dolphins were once land animals...

And early humans were once marine dwellers, for a "brief" period in our history (East African Coast, 4 to 5 millions years ago, while being Australopithecus), which introduced the underwater cardiovascular instinct into our breath, enabling infants to perfectly dive and swim from birth. At the age of about three, we tend to lose this innate ability, and have to retrain, or learn to swim and dive.

Or so they say, at least.

<Gloom On>

I am not about to ask "What do we know, that they don't", because something significant to our continued survival, we don't do with just about all we seem to know.

<Switch Broken>

Here's the choker. Do Dolphins really have happy faces ? . If I was stuck with a constant smile I'd be upset . You can't know one without knowing the other . Can't even drown yourself unless a trawler helps.

<Gloom on>

where is blue screen of death when i finally want it

<trembling lower lip initialized>

I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
Without ever having felt sorry for itself.

-- D.H. Lawrence

F%^^* OFF D H LAWRENCE . I'M ENJOYING THIS. I NEED THE RELEASE

<applying tried and tested procedure>

Q: How many therapist's does it take to change a light bulb ?

A: One - But it's got to want to change.

Further medication will be applied later.

<Gloom on>

...If I was stuck with a constant smile I'd be upset...

<Gloom off>

<Gloom off!!!>

<Gloom off!!!>

See? broken

Deep down , you want it to be broken.

You are on a downward spiral poor yuval . Contemplete it's Fibonacci beauty .

Look for the sunflowers

Expand your way back up the spiral of self pity.

...Deep down, you want it to be broken...

You're way too optimistic. It's not deep down, rather Skin-Deep I'd say. Well, plain obvious, to be blunt.

Well... but you forced me to reveal here, I actually broke it.

On purpose, that is.

Why do you think I'm facing the corner for the last thirty years, having a mirror to see behind my back, seeing everything left-to-right, arguing as if it was naturally so, with spite to be proven otherwise, to the day I die?

Because such choices, you make only once, for good.

Real good.

Henry: There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.

Liza: Well fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, well fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it

Henry: With what shall I fix it, dear Liza, dear Liza, with what shall I fix it dear Liza, with what?

Liza: With straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, with straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, with straw.

This goes on in the same format with different lines:

But the straw is too long. Then cut it. With what shall I cut it?

With an axe But the axe is too dull. Well sharpen it How shall I sharpen it With the stone But the stone is too dry Then wet it With what shall I wet it? With the water But I have no water Then get some With what shall I get it? With the bucket But there's a hole in the bucket...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_Hole_in_My_Bucket"

Yuval: There's a hole in my concept, dear Liza, dear Liza, There's a hole in my concept, dear Liza, a hole.

Liza: Well fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, well fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it

Yuval: I told you it's Yuval, dear Liza, dear Liza, I told you it's Yuval, dear Liza, You whore.

I have to concede ! Wickidly good . Don't rest easy I will be back

...I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
Without ever having felt sorry for itself...

This is one of the most beautiful quotes I have ever seen. stumbled upon it at a movie in the funky eighties, can't remember which, was recited there as a poem or something.

Featured in GI Jane with Demmi Moore

Right, right, only this one was in the fictional-nineties, wasn't it?