Sunday, July 31, 2011

Materialist Philosophy Does Not Contradict Itself

Recently a philosophical acquaintance argued that materialists blatantly contradict themselves when they take a materialist view of reality and yet affirm that free, independent action is possible.

The argument which he presented relied on three premises:

1) Materialism affirms that reality in nothing but matter-in-motion.
2) Materialism implies affirmation of determinism, the metaphysical idea that all physical reality is causally determined.
3) Free, independent action requires action free of determinism.

To draw the conclusion:

4) Hence, when materialists affirm that human freedom is possible they contradict themselves. (They affirm that all reality is determined and affirm that some reality (human free action) is not determined.)

The argument fails because it relies on very questionable, if not downright false, premises with regard to (1) 'materialism,' (2) 'determinism,' and (3) 'free action.'

MATERIALISM: Defining "materialism" as the view that the only reality is matter-in-motion is not at all consistent with the materialist philosophy held by scientific materialists. Scientific materialism is the philosophy that works to explain all reality in terms of natural, physical processes. By contrast, the idea that materialism is the metaphysics which claims nothing exists but matter-in-motion is the philosophy of the ancient Greek atomists such as Democritus and Epicurus.

One plausible version of modern materialism is one the philosophy that holds everything real to be ultimately explained from a physical base. For example, the living entities of biology and the thinking entities of psychology, sociology, and culture are entities that can be explained as arising from a physical base. Calling such phenomena mere matter-in-motion amounts to a caricature of that level of reality. On the other hand, the materialist claim that ultimately each of these has a physical base is a viable form of realism and far removed from the simplistic notion that only matter-in-motion is real.

It would be a gross distortion to claim that the sub-atomic reality studied by quantum physics and the atomic reality studied by atomic and nuclear physics is a study of matter-in-motion, as the sub-atomic particle-waves and the atoms are the basis for matter. It would be a gross distortion to say that electro-magnetic band, which includes visible light, radio waves, ultra-violet waves and other forms of energy, is just matter-in-motion. No knowledgeable scientific materialist would ever claim that such physical realities as electrical and magnetic energy are nothing but matter-in-motion.

To claim that the realities of living organisms, of beings with a complex central nervous system, and of persons with culture (language, science, art, mathematics) are nothing but matter-in-motion is to commit a gross reductionism, one which scientific realists (materialists) do not commit. To say that all living organism have a physical-chemical basis is not to say that the reality of living organisms is nothing but the sub-atomic particles, the atoms, and molecules which make up that living organism. Likewise to say that all beings with a complex central nervous system and those with complex, large brains have a physical-chemical basis is not to say that the reality of such beings reduces to a set of sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules which make up those beings. In short, the complexity of existence at the biological and psychological levels is not reducible to mere matter-in-motion.

DETERMINISM: The claim that all materialists must accept the truth of determinism is a false claim.

Universal determinism is a metaphysical philosophy that is not held by many scientific materialists. There is no compelling reason for holding that all physical reality is held together by a universal net of causal determinism. This view of a universal determinism is an old metaphysical philosophy that modern scientific thinkers have mostly abandoned because a number of factors that question that universal determinism; e.g., the indeterminism of quantum physics, the randomness that is found in physical and social reality, the chaotic aspects of much of physical reality and the complexity the characterizes much of physical reality, making claims of causal determinism to be claims of academic philosophy at best.

The fact that many of the sciences utilize a from of causal explanation, i.e., explain phenomena in terms of the conditions and processes that caused the phenomenon in question, does not imply that those sciences entail a metaphysics of universal determinism. When we consider human reality (action, behavior) at the cultural-sociological-historical level, claims of universal determinism governing human behavior are not at all tenable, since the ability to predict human behavior is very limited at best.

FREEDOM (sometimes called "free will"): The statement that a materialist philosophy implies the impossibility of free, independent action by human beings is a false statement.

The belief that materialism negates the possibility of free, purposive, and autonomous human behavior is a belief that rests on a particular, philosophical notion of 'freedom,' one which identifies free action with free will, and sees freedom and free will as being independent of all conditioning factors. Accordingly, if human behavior can be causally explained as arising from neurological factors, psychological conditioning, and such, it is held that such behavior is not free behavior. Only action that would take place in absolute independence of any determining factor would be considered free action or action indicative of free will.

There are good reasons for rejecting that notion of 'freedom,' which turns out to be a concept of metaphysical freedom held by many traditional philosophers, but one which has nothing to do with our ordinary, effective concept of freedom. A rough statement of our ordinary, effective notion of freedom is that one acts freely when one acts in accordance with one's desires and self-interest. In other words, one is not coerced or compelled to act by some determining force, external or internal. A modern materialist does not have any trouble accounting for the fact that humans make 'free' choices and rational decisions which are not just the outcome of factors beyond their control.

Even if one accepts some version of metaphysical determinism (and there are many reasons for rejecting such), many philosophers have developed views of human 'freedom' which are compatible with determinism. In other words, it does not follow that if one accepts determinism, the implication is one that denies human free, 'independent' action.

Dr. Juan Bernal PhD is a retired mainframe programmer with degrees in philosophy and Spanish literature.

Juan is the a managing blogger & author at PhilosophyLounge.com which covers various topics from western philosophy, religion, and history. PhilosophyLounge.com is a place were people can interact, debate, and contribute to the topics that interest them pertaining to philosophy.

Take some time and visit the blog for more exciting articles.


View the original article here

What Shall I Think About Today? Cognitive Surplus, Spend It Wisely

As a society gets more and more efficient, it's citizens have more time to relax, enjoy recreation, and also to think. Not everyone enjoys thinking, sometimes they like to vegetate and just watch the TV, or listen to music. That's fine too, and each individual in a free society is allowed to spend their extra time however they wish, doing whatever pleases them. That's a good thing, and it is nice to live in such an abundant society and civilization.

Now then, let's say you are an individual who likes to think, and maybe you are no Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates, but you like to exercise your mental muscle now and again. Often, we are engaged in thoughts that our leaders suggest we think about, the types of things they'd like us thinking on, for instance, starving Africans, future space colonies, green alternative energy, or perhaps some political venue that will help serve the powers that be. Still, I would submit to you that you should think about those things, which most interests you, and use your cognitive surplus for those endeavors.

Obviously, with 7 billion people on the planet we don't need everyone thinking about exactly the same things all of the time. It might be good for nationalism, or national unity, or it might be good for the global community to get everyone on the same page. Nevertheless, a society does best when its thoughts are diverse, when individuality sets in, without the overshadowing thought police. This is how we will win the future, and this is how we will propel innovation, taking our society to the next step. Meanwhile, we should be careful not to succumb to societal norms, political correctness, or merely decide to think like everyone else so we fit in.

Having extra brain power, and more time to think is an extremely valuable tool for a society which wishes to press on into the future. There is no telling what new inventions, innovations, and new concepts the human mind might come up with. There are unlimited numbers of combination's which can be applied, and unlimited areas of thoughts from academia, science, industry, humanity, philosophy, education, energy, resources, transportation, communication, computers, technology, art, politics, and business to be merged.

Why not use your cognitive surplus to do something good for mankind, to push the boundaries of thought, and take this game to a higher level. That is if you are able, and you must remember your brain works better when you use it, and the more you use it the better it works. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 24,300 articles will be difficult because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off now..


View the original article here

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Want to Know the Biggest Secret of All - There Aren't Any

Humans are curious by nature, actually all up-right walking primates tend to be curious, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. Nor should it surprise anyone to learn that any good book publisher that publishes nonfiction books will tell you that the word "secret" in the title of the book will help it sell more copies. There is something that is alluring to the fact that there is a secret, something we don't know about, that makes us all too curious to go and find out. Religions use this tactic to recruit individuals to their flock, and marketers use it to sell products and services.

Still, it's used so often, and there are so few secrets in the information age that the chances of you learning a real secret are slim to none. That is to say, sure you might learn something that you don't know, but it's hardly a secret. And there are many more information outlets to discover the exact same information, usually for free. It's even more so than it ever has been in the past because all of mankind's information and knowledge is now online on the Internet. With billions of people connected to this massive communication system the concept of keeping secrets will someday be a thing of the past.

What I am trying to say is the biggest secret of all; is that there really are no secrets, that is to say no important secrets. Yes there is undiscovered information, and there are some things that humans don't yet know about physics, but I guarantee you someday in the future our artificially intelligent supercomputers, along with our scientists will discover all that information as well. I'm sure you've heard the phrase; Unlocking the Secrets of the Universe. There are no secrets in physics - there are only challenges in the observational abilities, and the limits to the devices that we presently have to do the viewing.

There are no secrets to our world, no one is purposely trying to hide anything of any huge magnitude, just silly little things, that don't amount to a hill of beans anyway. Luckily humans are a curious bunch, and they were to seek out information they do not know. However, with over 7 billion people on the planet now - the chances of anyone secret escaping all of mankind in the past, present, and off into the future is highly unlikely.

Therefore you should always realize that the biggest secret of all is; there aren't any real secrets anymore. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it. If you have any comments, concerns, and/or philosophical questions please shoot me an e-mail.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 24,222 articles by July 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM is going to be difficult because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off now..


View the original article here

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Robert Oppenheimer and Andrei Sakarov

Two Nuclear Scientists, Robert Oppenheimer and Andrei Sakarov, played leading roles in the development of nuclear bombs (A-Bomb for R.O. and the H-Bomb for A. S.) for their respective governments, and then experienced similar reversals in their views of the wisdom and morality of the nuclear weapons programs in their respective nations.

Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project which developed and built the first Atomic bomb in the mid 1940s, later became a voice of moderation and opposed development of the even more powerful thermonuclear bomb (H-Bomb). He felt that US superiority in stockpiling A-Bombs was sufficient for national defense, but he was opposed by strong voices in and out of government who favored the H-Bomb project; he was eventually discredited, lost his security clearance, and had no further influence on US nuclear arms policy. The US government took the advice of Edward Teller, one of Oppenheimer's scientific colleagues, and proceeded to develop the H-Bomb. Meanwhile (in the 1950s) Oppenheimer's loyalty to the United States was questioned and he was generally discredited as a leading scientist and adviser to the government. His contributions both for defense and as a spokesman for moderation were not given due recognition until much later (1990s) during the time of the Clinton administration.

The leading scientist in the Soviet development of the thermonuclear bomb was Andrei Sakarov, known as the "father of the H-Bomb" in the Soviet Union. After successful above-ground testing of the most powerful nuclear device ever exploded, he also had second thoughts. He criticized the whole arms program of the Soviet Union, argued strongly for bilateral nuclear treaties with the United States, criticized Soviet policies, and the Soviet authorities. In 1975 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but the leaders of the USSR were not pleased. Eventually he was arrested and sentenced to "internal exile." But with the later developments and moderation in the Soviet Union, Sakarov was recognized for his work on behalf of Human Rights. I believe that the American Humanist Association named him "Humanist of Year" in 1980.

It is ironic to note that in each case we have two leading scientists, whose moral, social conscience got them in trouble with the authorities in their respective countries. Each came out as a spokesman for moderation and opposed his respective nation's mad dash into the nuclear arms race. Both paid the price that is often exacted on anyone who raises moral questions about his country's weapons programs and anyone who opposes the military policies of their governments, especially when officials claim that national security hangs in the balance.

Dr. Juan Bernal PhD is a retired mainframe programmer with degrees in philosophy and Spanish literature.

Juan is the a managing blogger & author at PhilosophyLounge.com which covers various topics from western philosophy, religion, and history. PhilosophyLounge.com is a place were people can interact, debate, and contribute to the topics that interest them pertaining to philosophy.

Take some time and visit the blog for more exciting articles.


View the original article here

Be Curious About Creativity

Have you ever wondered why humanity is so questioning? What an amazingly curious mind the artist and inventor Leonardo Da Vinci had to make the discoveries that kept his name in the spotlight 500 years after his death. The world would not have the technology to reach others over the internet without curious, creative people sharing knowledge.

We all do need a little support, and sometimes an escape from everyday life, to find the inner artist in this busy world. Getting more conscious about who we are personally takes a little self examination and lot of ongoing assessment. The secret, I feel, is to return to our childhood memories to find what inspired and fulfilled us them.'Curiouser and Curiouser' was what Alice exclaimed in her journey to Wonderland. We may all have something to learn from falling down a well into another way of looking at the world.

I recently had a very interesting group of curious artists gather in my art studio at Tallegalla for a workshop. That curiosity was a largest part of this weekend was very evident. Most had questions that related to their purpose in creating and their ongoing search for answers. Learning how others have researched and discovered can answer the many questions we all have about life...and art is after all life.

My own curiosity has lead to a rather largish library that I continue to add to at such a rate I need three minds to absorb what I want to read. Not only is self education essential, we need to find our tribe and curiosity will lead us to our creative destiny. However remaining motivated can be a hard call at times as creative people can be like boats tossed about in storms of life. There are several versions of a saying attributed to Babatunde Olatunj and I particularly like this version "The clock is running. Make the most of today as time waits for no man. Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery and today is a gift. That is why it is called the present."

It is the mystery of life I find so interesting but it is today that is always going to be the best time to be educating the mind which is powerful and responsive to the best efforts to motivate and enrich us. Every day we can read something new, experiment, explore and best of all research what gives us passion. I found this alone to be the most inspiring of all the tools of creativity.

Lyne Marshall is an Australian artist and author of two books on art philosophy, Gleaner or Gladiator: The struggle to Create and Invisible Realities: Finding the Hidden Dimensions in Art. Lyne's blog on creativity is on http://www.lynemarshall.com.au/ and her art and books can be viewed on http://www.artclique.com.au/. All writing Copyright Lyne Marshall 2011


View the original article here

Friday, July 8, 2011

Platonic-Fullerene Chemistry and Nanopolymer Technology

The science of Platonic Fullerene Chemistry has been reunited the cultures of science and art to re-establish the ancient Platonic Science for Ethical Ends. This means that the concept of Aristotle's ethical science to guide ennobling government can now re-emerge throughout the world. The objective of that ancient science remains exactly the same as it once was. It is science, designed to avoid human extinction. The existence of two separate chemistries, one about the physical material reality and the other about the functioning of Dr Candace Pert's Molecule of Emotion, forms the structure of this human survival science. Both chemistries entangle with each other to describe universal reality. This provides the basis of the ancient Greek political concept of allowing the people to choose between what Buckminster Fuller's called Utopia or Oblivion.

The global slide toward oblivion today is much as it once was in ancient Athens, when the Tyrants plunged the city into impossible debt, threatening such chaotic violence that Solon was appointed to sort out the economic differences in a peaceful manner. He abolished personal debt and interest on loans, as well as making property ownership more accessible to the people. Within ten years Athens became extremely prosperous. His wisdom, on behalf of the people, made contributions toward more democratic concepts in the face of complex greed manipulations by unethical power brokers.

After ten years of growing prosperity the Tyrants again seized control and Athenian power began its path to decline by foreign aggression. Today the same situation has returned to Greece and other nations caught up in the current global economic nightmare, now threatening to destroy the civilisation of the United States of America. It can be considered that stakeholders in global economic rationalism might be able to conceive, to their benefit, a modification of their present economic legal responsiblies, by upgrading them to meet the new medical chemistry guidelines.

During the 20th Century it was common knowledge that our entropic chemistry, governed by the second law of thermodynamics, had correctly stated that it is impossible to construct a perpetual motion machine. However, such concepts can now be reasoned about logically with an understanding about the functioning of the integration of both the new and the old chemistries. Past economic rationalism, however, invented concepts that sought perpetual economic growth for the benefit of human civilisation. TIME Magazine's Century of Science's greatest scientist for 1907 was Maria Montessori, who realised this was in error, referring to the entropic second law as the Greed Energy Law that would only bring about economic collapses and continual warfare.

Working with the Jesuit Priest, Tielhard de Chardin, Montessori postulated the existence of an electromagnetic key to open the 'Golden Gates' to the future. This electromagnetic key was Immanuel Kant's God-like Ethic for perpetual peace on earth, the subject of Hans Christian Oersted's Doctorate in 1799 titled,The Architectonicks of Natural Metaphysics. Oersted envisaged a new electromagnetic biological technology, which, in modern terms, is the quantum biology of the new Platonic Fullerene Chemistry. This makes Faraday's concept of the electric motor a child's toy by comparison. We now know from nanopolymer research, that such an electromagnetic life-science ethic is associated with the functioning of the centriole within the human cell, giving glimpses of a truly supra technology beyond our previous ability to imagine.

It is not necessary to use such technical terminology to demonstrate to the people that modern science and economics has been constructed upon false assumptions that dismissed human feelings as part of its composition. Leonardo da Vinci was not the man of the Renaissance the public has been led to believe. His optics key in his Theory of Knowledge, claiming that the eye was the source of all cognition, was erroneously supported by Rene Descartes and Sir Francis Bacon, pivotal figures of the mechanical era. At the moment of conception the eye does not even exist to guide any evolutionary development at all. Leonardo was unable to envision the liquid crystal optics of the eye of the cell. When the fertilising sperm, driven by a male nano-scale electromagnetic motor, penetrates the liquid crystal optical construction membrane of the female ovum, Dr Carl Callerman's universal purpose is brought into living focus as a balanced Yin-Yang electromagnetic centriole. The optics of the cellular membrane, not the optics of the human eye, holds the key to all knowledge. The centriole is the carrier of universal life-science purpose.

Scientists such as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are researching about what can be considered to be crucial properties of the centriole that are associated with the cerebral functioning of micro-tubule polymers. Without a doubt, nano-polymer research is now becoming crucial research for humanity's future. However, Buckminster Fuller's warning about making the choice between Utopia or Oblivion is of paramount importance to the people of the world. Fears about entropic nano-bot technology appear to be well founded. Plato warned about the destructive evil of unformed matter within the physical atom that could emerge from the actions of engineers who knew nothing about spiritual optical engineering principles belonging to the science for ethical ends. Today, the nuclear radiation threat spreading into Japan pales into insignificance to the threat posed by current entropic nanotechnology.

The British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, has predicted that uncontrolled nanotechnology research is one of the inevitable human extinction outcomes that is likely to occur this century. In order to comprehend the solution to that dire threat of oblivion, we need to understand the basic relationship between the old familiar chemistry and the new one that is now emerging alongside it. We must free ourselves completely from being governed by an entropic dictatorship that denies that the science of life is linked to the infinite ethical fractal logic of the new chemistry. It is no longer acceptable to considerit heresy that Sir Isaac Newton's conviction, written in his Heresy Papers, that the world-view of a material universe must be completed with a more natural, profound philosophy, a philosophy based upon the same physics principles that upheld the original Platonic Science for Ethical Ends. Newton's infinite world-view can only be upheld by the same fractal logic that was basic to this lost science, and which is also fundamental to Platonic Fullerene Chemistry.

Buckminster Fuller's warning about a science governed by entropic logic was echoed by others such as the Molecular Biologist, Sir C P Snow, the Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Szent-Georgy, and the Max Plank Astrophysicist, Peter Kafka. All of these people warned that the mind-set of Homo Entropicus was following a path to total chaos. This is indeed an entrenched scientific culture, Einstein wrote that the second law of thermodynamics was the Premier Law of All of Science. Einstein's colleague, Sir Arthur Eddington called it the Supreme Metaphysical Law of the Entire Universe. Charles Darwin used it as the basis of his Theory of Evolution, actually citing Thomas Malthus' economic theories, which, in the 18th Century, had become synonymous with the second law of thermodynamics. For Western Moral Jurisprudence Law to attempt to continue to enforce an entropic global economic rationalism upon the global population can be considered to be a recipe for World War III.

In Volume 12 of the collected papers of Bertrand Russell, written in 1902, mention is made of Platonic metaphysics, but Russell lost belief in those ideas, although that particular work is considered to warrant further serious study. His, A Free Man's Worship, published in 1903, was a dedication to Albert Einstein's concept, that all life must be destroyed by the dictates of the second law of thermodynamics, the universal entropy law, and this became Russell's most popular reprinted essay. He wrote that "...the whole temple of man's achievement must be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins..." and "... only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built." In the light of the new Platonic Fullerene Chemistry, this horrific world-view that has been governing Western science for so many centuries, is no longer acceptable.

We know that various ancient Eastern philosophies were able to associate fractal geometrical logic with human emotional feeling. For example, the ancient Indra Diamond Net Necklace fractal demonstrates emotional concepts that are relevant to Dr Candace Pert's Molecule of Emotion discovered in1972. It is ignorant and offensive to consider such ancient philosophical ideas to have been ancient acts of pagan, barbaric behaviour, as was believed by St Augustine during the 5th Century, following the murder of the mathematician, Hypatia, in 415, who was the custodian of the Great Library of Alexandria.

During the 5th Century, over a thousand years of fractal logic life-science research were burned and dismissed from the mind-set of Western culture, influencing the Western world for another fifteen hundred years. The great genius, Albert Einstein, may have caused Bertrand Russell's inspiration that we must accept a living hell on earth, but Einstein's real greatness was that his protege, David Bohm, and Bohm's colleague, Karl Pribram, managed to break the entropic barrier to give the world a glimpse of the workings of an infinite fractal holographic universe. Einstein can be considered to have been instrumental in making that possible.

The front cover of New Scientist, dated the 26th of June 2010, heralded the Rise of the Quantum Machines. The relevant feature article carried the heading that "The new breed of quantum machines promise to patch a gaping hole into every experiment ever made". The quantum researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Nobel Laureate, Anthony Leggett, considered that although quantum theory is our most successful physics theory to date, it may not continue to describe the physical world perfectly, because there are too many issues that approximate reality.

The quantum theory mentioned in the article emphasises the physical world. The new Platonic Fullerene Chemistry, however, is about quantum biology and its interweaving with the world of quantum mechanics. This permits new models of reality to come into existence that challenge the validity of our understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. One of physics' most famous thought experiments is that of Shrodinger's cat, which can be dead and alive at the same time, an argument designed to demonstrate that quantum theory can be considered to flawed. Many scientists argue otherwise, referring to the property of a single Fullerene carbon-70 molecule being able to go through two separate slits at the same time within Young's double slit experiment. Ideas about parallel universes appear to emerge from such thinking, which although interesting, do not seem to be addressing the serious consequences of maintaining an entropic mind-set.

Due to the serious issue of Fuller's choice between Utopia or Oblivion underlying this article, it has been deemed warranted to make an attempt to present some reasoned argument that might draw public attention to its perceived peril at the hands of the second law. The properties of the Fullerene Carbon-70 is of great interest to the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, which is closely associated with the development of the New Measurement of Humanity Project at the University of Florence. The Centre has adopted the Mark Robinson model of space-time, which provides a suggested solution to Young's famous double slit experimental paradox and it is therefore considered prudent to mention this as being representative of the new models of space-time that are now emerging in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics

Robinson's model was among such models noted in the text of a quantum biological paper by Huping Hu and Maoxin Wu, titled On Dark Chemistry- What's dark Matter and How Mind Influences Brain Through Proactive Spin. The paper was about how primordial sub atomic spin influences consciousness in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics and was published in NeuroQuantology, Volume 5, issue2, June 2007.

In accord with Plato's dictum that all is geometry, Robinson postulated that a fundamental concept of space-time describes a simple premise. Information within energy creates a unique geometrical structure of time, space and matter, reminiscent of Sir Isaac Newton's 'very subtle spirit' mentioned in his Fundamental Principles of Natural Philosophy. In Robinson's model, a constant acceleration of light upgrades a holographic pattern of space-time reality, compatible to Newton's association of light carrying information related to gravity. Space-time comprises of three phase states, past, present and future as a singular geometric event. Each phase's location is uniquely defined within the time line. This suggests a coherent geometry through space-time, replacing the concept of randomness and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Nonlocality, the ability of information exchange beyond space-time, is essential to Robinson's model. Each phase of a moment of time communicates within its being, to constantly upgrade its local environmental space-time structure of the universe. Within Young's double slit experiment, this process might play a role to explain paradoxical events. We know from the EPR paradox that information can be in two places at once and we might now associate this with the workings of some intelligent purpose rather that submit to Bertrand Russell's world-view of uncertainty and chaos. Order from chaos can be considered associated with sub-atomic movement evolving through space-time, compatible with both the physics principles upholding the Platonic Science for Ethical Ends and Sir Isaac Newton's complete description of the universe.

Professor Paolo Manzelli and Professor Massimo Pregnolato were awarded the Georgio Napolitano Medal in 2010 on behalf of the Republic of Italy, for their quantum biological development of Platonic Fullerene Chemistry, as part of their New Measurement of Humanity Project, the New Renaissance. Their Age of Quantum Entanglement in science and art allows for an understanding of how the process of chaos simultaneously enacts an auto catalytic event that produces a new ethical, or healthy, order in nature, described as the "Principle of Fertile Evolution".

http://www.science-art.com.au/

Professor Robert Pope is the Director of the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, Uki, NSW, Australia. The Center's objective is to initiate a second Renaissance in science and art, so that the current science will be balanced by a more creative and feminine science. More information is available at the Science-Art Centre website: http://www.science-art.com.au/books.html

Professor Robert Pope is a recipient of the 2009 Gold Medal Laureate for Philosophy of Science, Telesio Galilei Academy of Science, London. He is an Ambassador for the Florentine New Measurement of Humanity Project, University of Florence, is listed in Marquis Who's Who of the World as an Artist-philosopher, and has received a Decree of Recognition from the American Council of the United Nations University Millennium Project, Australasian Node.

As a professional artist, he has held numerous university artist-in-residencies, including Adelaide University, University of Sydney, and the Dorothy Knox Fellowship for Distinguished Persons. His artwork has been featured of the front covers of the art encyclopedia, Artists and Galleries of Australia, Scientific Australian and the Australian Foreign Affairs Record. His artwork can be viewed on the Science-Art Centre's website.


View the original article here

Golden Touch

Once upon a time there was a rich man named Midas. He had many palaces, many acres of land, a lot of money and many gold bars. Still he was not satisfied with them. He wanted more and more gold. He had a daughter, who was very beautiful. He loved her very much.

One night a fairy wanted to teach him a lesson and appeared before him. The fairy said, "Oh Midas! I want to give a boon to you. You may ask for anything. It'll be granted."

Midas was very happy. He thanked the fairy and said," kindly give me the power by which anything touched by me changes into gold." The fairy smiled and gave him the power. Then the fairy disappeared.

Midas was very happy. He touched all the articles in his palace. Everything changed into gold. "I will be the richest man in the world. Oh, fairy! Thank you very much," said Midas. Then he went to bed.

Next morning he woke up. He wanted to have a bath. When he touched water, it turned into gold. He was shocked. He could not have a bath.

Then he came to the dining table. The servants served delicious dishes before him. When he touched them to eat, everything changed into gold. He could not eat.

At that time, his daughter came there to have her break-fast. When he touched her fondly, she too became a golden statue.

"Oh, God! What is this?" he cried. "I don't like this power of changing everything into gold. I want my daughter back. "

No one answered his prayer. He wept bitterly.

"Oh! I don't like to be the richest man in the world. I am ready to give away all my wealth. Give me back my daughter," Midas cried.

In the evening the fairy appeared before Midas and asked, "Midas! Are you happy now?"

"Oh, fairy! Kindly take away your boon. I don't like to be a rich man. I am ready to be a poor man if my daughter is given back to me," Midas requested.

"Midas! Wealth is not everything. Don't be greedy. I wanted to teach you a lesson. Your daughter will come back and you will lead a normal life," said the fairy and disappeared.

The extraordinary power of Midas vanished. His daughter came to life. Midas was very happy and led a contented life. Then he came to the dining table. The servants served delicious dishes before him. When he touched them to eat, everything changed into gold. He could not eat.


View the original article here

Friday, July 1, 2011

You Cannot Automate Everything with Computers to Run Human Society and Still Maintain Freedom

As the coordinator for a think tank which happens to operate online, I often find people who are computer savvy, and have skills in the IT sector. They definitely come up with very intriguing ideas to streamline our civilization using software and computers to help improve the efficiency. However, there is a problem with all this, and that is that the folks writing the software, and creating the hardware, perhaps do not have the proper experience in a given industry, or understand the ramifications or law of unintended consequences when proposing ways to fix the economy, government, healthcare system, transportation, or anything else.

Perhaps you've been frustrated when you were forced to fill out a form online or on a computer. You weren't allowed to go to the next question until filled out something in the previous box. Unfortunately what you had to fill out in the box was unacceptable, there were no good choices, or you couldn't answer the question because it wasn't applicable. It's times like that that you realize that the computer systems were set up for a certain type of scenario, rather than someone who has a special case, special need, or a different situation.

One thing I've learned is if you try to develop a system for the most unintelligent person, and make it simple enough for everyone to use, you inevitably run into problems if there are complications. It happens anytime you make a rule, regulation, or law and making rules is pretty much that's what writing software is about. You see, you cannot automate everything with computers to run human civilization and society. And if you try you will inadvertently take away freedom. In other words someone won't be allowed to do something merely because there was a box to fill out, or a form, and therefore they can't.

That's unfortunate because we have laws in our country which are supposed to be set up that; "if it doesn't say you can't, then you automatically can," and in a way by making few rules, we derive freedom while living under the rule of law. Now then, the software programmers and the hardware that runs these computers will not be able to think of everything on their own, until we create true artificially intelligent to run the system and make future changes on its own.

Meanwhile humans who are fallible, and in this case may not understand all the future situations because things change, but also because they have no experience in that particular industry, area of endeavor, or social program, are causing a loss of freedom with each new rule they create to run the new system.

We must be very careful what we automate things not to cut people out of the pattern, or take away the freedoms that we all love. We do this far too often when someone doesn't consider all the potential eventualities in advance, and they come up with some law, rule, or software program which alienates an entire group of people. Or, sometimes just an individual, someone like you. I hope I've made my point.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.


View the original article here