Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Pilar Morales pilarmorales...@gmail.com wrote: Does Comp address ego little or not, or super human powers, or theory brewing? How about miracles, and temporarily apparent, and non-repeatable, break down of laws of physics? For example, in the early 1900s, there was a man walking through the woods and found himself staring at someone, just as startled, staring back at him, dressed from 1700s; the portal vanished after a few minutes. This is just one example. My motive for finding a scientific TOE is that I am interested in objective and measurable proof that chakras, or some sort of energy flows through the body. Some sort of energy does flow through the body, otherwise it wouldn't be able to move. You seem to have an alternative view of energy. Not really alternative, I think *all* is energy. Although I believe that the physics/math fundamental principles are not truly understood. Faraday was probably more on-track than Maxwell or Einstein, but he had a pure heart full of wonder. Hawkin uses his own theory of a big bang to prove we (he) don't need a god or some sort of cosmic consciousness, when it very well could be that this energy is but an aspect of this cosmic consciousness. It's just that to me, a theory has to account for all phenomena, including what cannot be measured or repeated. I haven't found anything so far that can measure or even validate scientifically the exceptions that are usually avoided by scientists. In the case of chakras, I've found that it is mainly a personal experience of centers of energy in the body, but there's no way to talk about them rationally. Brings to mind the movie The Matrix, where humans were connected to cables throughout the spine, but there was no proof inside the code to see them. I wasn't able to read the comp paper, so it's not too easy to *not* fill in the blanks with my own assumptions. I have observed things that I wish to have an explanation for, other than my own speculations. And ignoring them would make me a victim of group thought. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Does Comp address ego little or not, or super human powers, or theory brewing? How about miracles, and temporarily apparent, and non-repeatable, break down of laws of physics? For example, in the early 1900s, there was a man walking through the woods and found himself staring at someone, just as startled, staring back at him, dressed from 1700s; the portal vanished after a few minutes. This is just one example. My motive for finding a scientific TOE is that I am interested in objective and measurable proof that chakras, or some sort of energy flows through the body. On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: We have gone far well all along despite the difference and the motivation. We might still disagree on a quasi technical point which is that the TOE does not need to assume consciousness existence explicitly in the basic axioms. (independently of the fact that comp assumes explicitly its existence). But then I know that this is key matter *only* for deriving the little physics of he little ego, in which you are apparently not more too much concerned with. No problem. My explanation is my job, my little-responsibility on this planet, in this game. Not necessarily yours. I am already quite happy that you don't throw the machines and its dreams in the aristotelian trashes. Bruno -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/** Mathematical-closure-of-**consciousness-and-computation-** tp31771136p32257371.htmlhttp://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32257371.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Should Math Be Taught in School
I agree that math should probably not be taught in school, but algebra. In elementary school. But, all the student's questions would lead to math... On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:33 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: After a resounding NO the question: who's math? I find it absolutely inevitable to include in the obligatory general school curriculum a certain math, necessary to calculate, to balance a check-book, to file a tax return, to make (basic) business accounting and the practical 'figuring out' of life's quantitative aspects. Not the Euler theorem, or a Cauchy integral. Also a glimps of concepts like imaginary, complex, infinite, calculus, etc. not to the level of application, but at least to a dictionary identification. I find it belonging to a general educational level, way above of the average newscastG. There are many kids with definite 'antitalent' for math, they should not be tortured, just taught conceptually. It should not be a go/no go for college, in general. Somebody can write beautiful historic poems, paint, or write a symphony without calculus-knowledge. A heart-surgeon can operate without knowing the math of a pacemaker-physics. And it may be a 'godsend' if economists would not be mathematicians, rather normal, logical people. Anyway the pretty girls are no real authorities in the question. On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** Are you the kind of person who knows math? http://videosift.com/video/Miss-USA-2011-Should-Math-Be-Taught-In-Schools Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unconscious Components
Craig, I'm wondering what would make my internal processes come up with not identical, but similar conclusions to what your theory seems to suggest. I went through your page and could relate to the questions you posed and saw a reflection of my own tendencies to integrate absolutely everything I observe, internally and externally into a category to explain everything. To me, anything I think that sounds new-agey is an internal tell tale that I'm going in the wrong direction. It's just the way my compass is calibrated, but I don't deny its existence. My... intuition? tells me that it is all math, holy math if you will. An abstract class where we, humans and atoms alike, invoke and experience its instantiations. Regarding your thoughts on photon behavior, it seemed to me that you are saying that photons are the quantum entanglement of spacetime. That they don't really travel through a medium, but that they will manifest through the entanglement of a sender and a receiver? On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Aug 13, 7:26 am, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: I cannot exclude this, hence who knows. Still, it would be nicer not only to get the answer but also how it has appeared. It appeared in stages over many years of thinking about these issues, first in 1987 noticing the underlying four-fold symmetry of popular divination systems; Tarot, I Ching, numerology, and astrology and correlating that with theories of consciousness like Leary's 8- neurocircuit model to arrive at a sort of a nuclear mandala of qualia logic, a kind of wheel of stereotypes: http://www.stationlink.com/mystic/meta4.gif. There are three main patterns to this mandala, one which cycles around the circumference as a progressive narrative, another which emanates from the center as binary symmetry of archetypal opposites, and a third which modulates the spectrum between the other two. As you push out from the center, the pattern becomes less digital-discrete- quantitative and more analog-compact-qualitative, bringing in personality themes and storytelling. I did have some interesting experiences with my own consciousness since then, unintentionally through lack of sleep and obsessive painting and debating with people online which contributed to my thinking on the subject. I guess that I must have applied my nuclear mandala logic to the types of arguments and style of arguments that I ran into, particularly over months debating on an atheist forum. I could see a clear dialectic between the extremism of atheist materialism and the opposite extremism of the new-age spirituality that I had been familiar with already. That led to the mural I collaged together to illustrate the themes of that opposition: http://s33light.org/ACMEOMMM The hypothesis of photon agnosticism (http://s33light.org/fauxton) came around the same time, and although our house was struck by lightning shortly after developing the idea, I'm not sure that there was a revelatory moment at it's inception. I think a general dissatisfaction with the ugly sprawl of the Standard Model in service of the arithmetic of QM led me to suggest an alternative which reconciles mind/body dualism and perception. A simple flip of the topology at the subatomic level seemed to have an appeal for me that reminded me of other times in my life when I had seen a simple underlying pattern which others had not questioned. In kindergarten, I actually was mentioned in the local newspaper because I was the only kid who was able to see the Formal Operation logic of Piaget's cylinder tasks (http://www.jstor.org/pss/748) at age 4 or 5 (rather than the expected 8-10). This is what photon agnosticism seems like to me. I think that I may very well be ahead the curve on this, as I have actively pursued any arguments which could falsify the hypotheisis, debating with physics students and professors. I not only have not found any compelling falsification for the idea, but my conversations with the academics on this has consistently reinforced my perception that the questioning of this assumption of dumb-particle photons is not within the scope of the typical mind, suited as it would be for the purely quantitative approach of contemporary physics. Rather than a spirit of scientific curiosity or polite correction of what my theory had overlooked, I found only seething anger and ad hominem attacks on me personally - my style of writing or debating, my lack of formal training, my iconoclastic attitude, all manner of arguments from authority but nothing remotely addressing the simple question: What evidence do we have that photons physically exist? The irony of course, is that this kind of treatment is exactly what my ACME-OMMM model predicts - that those who are most comfortable with quantitative, literal logics will meet their qualitative, figurative symmetry with blind fanaticism that eclipses
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Dear John, thank you for the feedback. My comments below.. On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Pilar, as your fellow Not-English-Mothertongue guy. I point to the*incompleteness * in this language:* Nothing - EXISTS not.* It isn't. But it is bad English to write: * Why 'is-not' nothing?* so we have a discussion point. In my (non-IndoEuropean) mothertongue the question is exactly formulated in the 'wrong(?)' way. *(Miert nincs semmi?*) I felt that zero as a concept would take care of that. In fact, zero wasn't part of the numeral system until very late in the game. I'm sure it took a lot of discussion to make it real, and its acceptance has revolutionized math. I see you take it for granted that the Universe was born. Was it indeed? Maybe OUR universe was, but I speak about the World (Multiverse, none of them necessarily identical in any sense) in which we inhabit a pretty simple one with 'the' physical system we have. John, I personally don't believe there was a begining with nothing before it. Information is not created or destroyed, just transformed. The Universe is being born every day in a way. Our limited imagination can work only with 'somethings', *nothing* has no meaning (if it includes such meaning - it would negate its true meaning - G) E.g. 'Physically' it cannot be bordered - or I ask: is such border inside the nothing (when it is nothing), or outside (when it does not belong (in)to it)? Yes, I understand. However, if you consider the EM Spectrum, what we can see (light) and what we can hear (sound) are very narrow ranges. There's a whole lot that our senses don't pick up, so we have to invent tools to extend our senses in order to know what else is there, where there was nothing before. If you consider also that our bodies are 99% empty space: you may call that space nothing, only until our human drive and capacity develops the tools, the sensors, the receptors to detect, measure, and observe what this empty space is made of and how it behaves. That nothing may be called God, or the Quantum Vacuum, or anything that sounds metaphysical until measured or observed or nobel-prized. ~2 decades ago I wrote a little silly 'ode' to 'Somethingness starting with the BLANK: *And there was 'NOTHING at all.* (I don't recall the rhythmic words anymore)* And when this nothingness 'realized it's nothingness then it changed into a 'somethingness' - as * *indeed it's nothingness. And the World was shaped in the course of such build-up*... I don't think 'nothing' is a 'poosible state' - I don't mix it up with 'zero' or 'null', just think about the meaningless meaning of it. No this, no that - MAYBE. I would not 'negate' ideas (states, as you call them) we don't know about. And we have lots beyond our knowledge. That was my first reaction when I read the article, but then I thought about the possibility of the Universe being binary-like. A computer needs the off state, it needs the zeroes. Zero is information: not that, you're right: not physical, not form. All the Best, Pilar Best regards John M On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:34 PM, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: On Aug 11, 3:48 pm, Pilar Morales pilarmorales...@gmail.com wrote: ... To truly define non-existence, you would have to define a set of all that it is not: no time, no matter, no energy, no ideas, no mathematical constructs, and no each of the etcs to infinity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Brent, Is it possible that zero could have negative charge, positive charge, and neutral charge? Which reminds me, why is it that the photon doesn't have an anti-particle other than itself? It makes no sense to me that Bosons for the most part don't have antimatter equivalents. I would think that the antiparticle of a photon has got to be magnetic in essence. If the word wasn't taken already, I would say that the antiparticle of a photon is a graviton or a magnetron, which to me, gravitation and magnetism are manifestations of the same force, just different reactions to interactions. And at the risk of sounding (even more) crazy, I would say that the photon and its anti-particle are entangled at the essential connection point that bridges between matter and that hidden world. Something that makes planets levitate as a magnet levitates a rotating magnet, that carries light, that in every closed system creates an attracting and repulsive force. It is that something that tips over when it collects enough mass and makes it collapse. Not the Higgs. I'm sure there's someone out there who has thought of this and has the math to back it up!! On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ** On 8/12/2011 2:08 PM, Pilar Morales wrote: I see you take it for granted that the Universe was born. Was it indeed? Maybe OUR universe was, but I speak about the World (Multiverse, none of them necessarily identical in any sense) in which we inhabit a pretty simple one with 'the' physical system we have. John, I personally don't believe there was a begining with nothing before it. Information is not created or destroyed, just transformed. The Universe is being born every day in a way. Since in QM information can be negative, it may be the universe not only has zero energy it also has zero information (in fact that would seem implicit in the idea that everything happens). Brent The universe is just nothing, rearranged. --- Yonatan Fishman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/12/2011 5:28 PM, Pilar Morales wrote: or a magnetron, which to me, gravitation and magnetism are manifestations of the same force, just different reactions to interactions. Andre Sakharov wrote a famous paper that suggests gravity is an emergent curvature of spacetime from the vacuum fluctuations of quantum fields, including the EM field That makes more sense to me. The fundamental unit of magnetism is (has to be) spacetime itself, time being the most important differentiator. I think there's a problem when we give the speed of 300Kk/s to the particle of light versus giving it to the field in which it travels. The specific frequency of that field has a sign posted: Speed Limit X, so it makes sense to me that the fields are of greater importance since everything, every particle, is in constant movement. It is the field that makes it move. Like a leaf carried by the current of a river, it is the current that carries it; or a sailboat when it catches the current of the wind. Nothing can travel faster than the particular current without additional energy, but the speed of the particles depends on their mass, their charge, and the size/speed or frequency of the current in which it wants to travel. This would fit perfectly with conservation of energy. It would be another quality of the spacetime field that puts pressure on the particles that makes them experience entropy, like water pressure. Or maybe not. Thanks for the link, it's in my queue now :) http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~**akempf/sakharov.pdfhttp://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~akempf/sakharov.pdf The idea is popular again because black hole thermodynamics implies gravity could be an entropic force. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-**qc/pdf/0204/0204062v1.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0204/0204062v1.pdf Brent My brother rose thru his gravity, while contrariwise I sank due to my levity. --- Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Roger, Sorry to butt in, but I was also thoroughly confused. It seems to me that you are re-discovering zero 0, as representing a concept of the absence of any thing. If you mean that zero is our concept of non existence, and that zero is defined, not by its attributes, but by the absence of them, then you must define zero = not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, ad infinitum. This would make zero, or non existence, an infinite description of every single thing that we can identify in existence or having form, as having non existence. It would actually make zero, or non existence, pure potential in its defining process from an absolute reference. I believe that trying to define something by describing what is not, doesn't really define it other than conceptually. If I say that zero is something because I have a concept of what it's not, it doesn't really make it something. I think the concept of zero is a powerful one, but then we made into something, made it have meaning after a decimal period: in 50 it is something that multiplies 5 times 10. Going back to the concept of non existence of zero, division by zero is inconceivable and if you divide by the definition of zero, the calculations would take you through infinity: 1/(not 1), 1/(not 2), 1/(all the possible definitions of what it is not). Defining zero as a state, not as a concept, can only be done in my view, as an infinite iteration of possible states. Although it is true that non-existence is lack of time, it is only partially true, a partial state. To truly define non-existence, you would have to define a set of all that it is not: no time, no matter, no energy, no ideas, no mathematical constructs, and no each of the etcs to infinity. Regarding the subjectivity of non-existence and its dependence on an observer, I would say that I agree that zero is defined relatively to the observer/observation: How many *apples* do I have? Zero *apples*. How much time do we have? Zero *time*. What *is* zero? (changes from relative (state) to absolute (concept)) = zilch, nada. Zero is the absence of any thing; think of any thing (iteratively through infinity) and the lack of it is zero. Non-existence could, I agree, be defined as a boundary of what is. But then again we break into relative and absolute definitions: The non existence of 1, is the state of all minus 1. The non-existence of all, would be the boundary of all that is, in which conceptually, zero is at the center - not outside- the number line. In a way, this definition of zero (both relative and absolute) goes well with particle physics in that each individual form in essence, is both existent and non-existent before it is observed. It seems to me that it is potentially both, until a relative observer identifies one thing, automatically differentiating its non-existence. Bringing consciousness into the equation, I wonder if self-observance makes a difference or if the observer needs to be outside the observed. Thanks Roger for the article and for allowing me to think outloud, Pilar On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Roger roger...@yahoo.com wrote: David, I believe you're right that I misspoke in my previous posting. Thanks. What I meant was that if we consider non-existence itself and not our mind's conception of non-existence, then that non-existence itself (ie, that complete lack of all matter, energy, time, space, ideas, mathematical constructs, and of minds to try and conceive this lack of all.) completely defines or describes the entirety of what is actually physically present. There's nothing else there other than the complete lack of all. Because it is the complete description of what is physically present, it is an existent state. I put physically in quotes here not to try and linguistically reify non- existence, but because in order to even consider non-existence itself, we have to have some physical condition to refer to. Overall, what this means is that our mind's conception of non- existence is of just plain nothingness. But, non-existence itself is actually an existent state and can really therefore be called something instead of nothing. This means that non-existence itself really does have a referent in actuality (the phrase you mentioned previously). Thanks. Roger On Aug 10, 11:40 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 18:16, Roger Granet roger...@yahoo.com wrote: So, when I say that non-existence is the complete description of what is present, by necessity, I'm jumping back and forth between two meanings of non-existence. The first non-existence in the phrase refers to non-existence itself and what is present is our mind's conception of non-existence. We're stuck having to do this because we exist, but non-existence itself, and not our mind's conception of non-existence doesn't have this dependence. I've read the above several times and, sadly, I still have no clear idea of what you
Re: Progress and Happiness
Hello Rex, thank you for generating this tread. Nice subject title. My comments below On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me that if the overall environment remained relatively stable for an extended period of time - then regardless of how it ended up, humans would be at about same level of happiness. In this statement, you seem to posit a relationship/correspondence between happiness and evolution. Also, that natural selection would favor happy traits. I'm not sure that's the case, but seems a theory worth exploring. A paradise or a hell, the species should evolve towards the same overall happiness level. If an overall happiness level can be described as acceptance of environmental conditions instead of an individual sense of fulfillment, then comparison to other's conditions, either in paradise or hell, would provide the overall contrast to feel better or worse than someone else, and happiness would depend on the individual's perspective: The glass is half-empty or half-full, an individual or a mass perspective, as the one that predominates our culture. However, it seems to me that true happiness, true individual fulfillment would see a glass with no water in an environment such as that; comparison has no bearing in their happiness. Instead, an unhappy, unfulfilled individual would use comparison as a crutch of hope, as an adjusted perspective in order to cope with unfulfillment until personal fulfillment occurs. We can only be excessively happy, or excessively unhappy, in a world that we aren't well adapted to. I never thought about this exactly this way but makes a lot of sense. The excessively happy part was a surprise. Self- sabotage can level the field if we are not adapted for excessive happiness.. My reasoning is that happiness serves a purpose...it motivates us to do things that enhance our reproductive success. Unhappiness also serves a purpose...it motivates us to avoid things that decrease our reproductive success. You are making an assumption that happiness is directly proportional to reproductive success. I'm not sure there's enough evidence to support a theory that reproductive success is in direct relation/proportion to happiness. Happiness is useless as a motivational tool if it's too hard *or* too easy to achieve. Unhappiness is useless as a motivational tool if it's too hard *or* too easy to avoid. There has to be some optimum motivational mix of happiness and unhappiness...and I'd think it's always approximately the same mix. Even in a hellish world, humans would be about as happy as they would be in a paradise...once they (as a species) had adapted. Which brings me to my next point. IF this evolutionary theory were true, then scientific advancements only increase human happiness to the extent that it puts us into situations that we're not well adapted to. I believe that in evolution theory, evolution happens because of changes and adaptation in the environment, that is, as the environment changes, organisms currently not equipped to live in that environment need to adapt, evolving themselves in turn as they do adapt. Scientific advancements are subject to this evolutionary theory and natural selection: scientific advancements are evolved tools that have adapted in response to our interactions with science and of science with us. Some advancements have gone extinct, like the mini-disc, or VHS, or many of the theories themselves. Evolution is a dynamic process because we are part of the environment that affects us and that we affect. I would say that scientific advancements increase human happiness to the extent that they fulfill a need, a desire, a demand of a society or of the individual. A definition of happiness (fleeting versus true, or relative versus absolute) and of progress seems to be in order. Keeping up with the neighbors carries a very different feeling than say, catching a glimpse of a double rainbow, or eating when you are really really hungry. Perhaps happiness and progress, and their levels, can be likened to Maslow's pyramid. AND, given enough time (and mutation), we should adapt to all scientific advancements...and a key part of this adaptation will be to reduce the amount of happiness that they generate. I remember the first time my dad sat down in front of a computer, the whole scene invoked the soundtrack of 2001: A Space Odyssey. He was obviously intimidated, and the gap between his adequacy and the technology seemed as large as the Grand Canyon. However, when my daughter, at 6mos old, was on my lap and I was working on the computer, she seemed uncannily ready to use it. I sat there watching her take over the mouse and the keyboard, with her eyes fixed on the screen, effecting change. I wonder if scientific advancements are a response to generational evolution or if it's the other way
