[Vo]:Another BLP PR blurb, this one with a photo
Another in an endless series of BLP PR aftershocks: See: http://www.dosci.org/energy/thermal-power-generator-to-revolutionize-the-world/ or http://tinyurl.com/5zhlta This brief post comes with a photograph of what looks like a generating facility. No caption. No description of what the photograph depicts. I assume the photo is nothing more than stock footage slapped up showing of a typical generator that may reside at a utility plant and has absolutely nothing to do with an actual alleged BLP prototype that may be in the process of being assembled. But if someone wishes to correct me, I'm all ears! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Another BLP PR blurb, this one with a photo
--- OrionWorks wrote: I assume the photo is nothing more than stock footage slapped up showing of a typical generator that may reside at a utility plant and has absolutely nothing to do with an actual alleged BLP prototype Correct. There is zero connection of this image to BLP. The faceplate in the image says Fuji: which I believe it to be a model name of generators made by Hitachi: http://www-pis.hitachi.co.jp/large-generator/product/lineup/index.html
Re: [Vo]:Another BLP PR blurb, this one with a photo
Yep!, It's a Fuji. Remember that public relations (PR) is the bedrock of credibility. Richard
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Jones, Ed, and Richard ponder one of the Big Mysteries pertaining to our Existence: ... Specifically from Jones: Is it possible to stimulate actual scientific advancement through mere intent? Can we even rid ourself from oil addiction this way? ... or is the time horizon too extended for that? ... But - going beyond this one example, are we nevertheless on the cusp of something big (in alternative energy) from another niche (or several of them)? ... due to overwhelming desire, or are we on the cusp of yet another round of disappointment? This brings to mind the many debates concerning Morphogenetic Fields: See: http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-morphogeneticfields.html http://www.mgtaylor.com/delphi/sheldrake.html ...as speculated by Rupert Sheldrake. Ok, some Off-the-wall-thoughts of my own on this speculative matter: There's a popular NewAge saying which proclaims that we create our own reality. I suspect most who ponder the ramifications of the NA phrase take the meaning metaphorically, perhaps in the same vein as reading certain passages from the bible, particularly Genesis. Others are beginning to ponder the ramifications of wondering if there might actually be more to this NA meaning. Back in the 1970s, the pre-NewAge author, Jane Roberts, was one of the first to explore the ramifications in a series of alleged channeled writings - the Seth Material comes to mind. NewAge mumbo-jumbo set aside, I suspect aspects of these ramifications have been explored in certain SF novels. And if not, they damn well should be. FWIW, I'm particularly suspicious of the notion that we, as a species, have not yet matured to the point that we can consciously accept the notion that we might be responsible for creating our own reality. I suspect it would terrify most of us to consider how responsible we are in the manifestation of our surroundings, particularly the cause and effects we experience and blunder through. At our current stage of development we have collectively conspired to create a series of marvelous tools to help us cope with the gravity of the situation, such as Statistics. With Statistics we can divorce ourselves from our creations, allowing ourselves to step out of our creations and observe more objectively how the manifestations we create behave. Acquiring tools like Statistics is not a bad thing! Baby steps. But sooner or later we must grow up, some no doubt kicking and screaming the whole way. No! I wanna keep believing in the Great Punkin! And now, I return the TV back to the viewer. Roll the Outer Limits Credits. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
OrionWorks wrote: There's a popular NewAge saying which proclaims that we create our own reality. I suspect most who ponder the ramifications of the NA phrase take the meaning metaphorically, perhaps in the same vein as reading certain passages from the bible, particularly Genesis. Others are beginning to ponder the ramifications of wondering if there might actually be more to this NA meaning. Back in the 1970s, the pre-NewAge author, Jane Roberts, was one of the first to explore the ramifications in a series of alleged channeled writings - the Seth Material comes to mind. NewAge mumbo-jumbo set aside, I suspect aspects of these ramifications have been explored in certain SF novels. Waldo and Magic, Inc, both by Heinlein are probably the best known. If you've ever heard someone refer to a remote manipulator as a waldo then you've heard of the first of these. The Childe cycle of Gordon Dickson explored a chunk of the idea in Necromancer but Dickson dropped it later on in the series (it makes for a rather hard to manage world). The Practice Effect explores a cute variation on it; can't recall the author. Many, many other books have touched on the notion that belief can make it so. It's an easy proof that in an infinite universe there's a world where magic works. Sadly, it's an equally easy proof that you could never find such a world even if you had interstellar teleportation so you could visit lots and lots of star systems in hardly any time.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
--- Ed, I am not suggesting that intent is ever necessary or required for scientific advancement. After all, we can point to many anecdotes in the history of science where a great advance was either random or accidental. In fact seeming randomness serves to disguise the proportion of cases where intent is useful. Instead, the point is that intent can *on occasion* expedite, or significantly step-up the rate of progress, over what is expected; and furthermore that the occasion itself can be manipulated in a positive way by group *non-physical* input (as well as by real information from the larger group). This has nothing to do with general understanding or interest, any more than a safe can be opened using only intention without the key. That, my friend, is a very fitting example and perfect metaphor for exactly what I am talking about. ... which metaphor does indeed highlight very well the thin-line of applicability to situations where intent can not only expedite but go beyond ... and where intent can materialize in several surprising ways: including looking at a problem outside the box, and having finely honed sensory ability to practice what you preach and reach beyond normal limitations ... Bottom line: you do not always need the key: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004434096_apwasafecracked1stldwritethru.html Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
From Stephen Lawrence ... The Practice Effect explores a cute variation on it; can't recall the author. David Brin is the author. (His series of novels on the Uplifting of species are particularly noteworthy.) In that universe which Brin created the more you worked ON a particular thing (or object) the better the thing got in its purpose. For example, rich people hired others to wear their favorite clothing. The more a particular piece of clothing was worn, the better looking and fitting the clothing became. I believe people in the novel were fond of saying Good Practicing when they bid farewell. If only in our universe! ;-) It's an easy proof that in an infinite universe there's a world where magic works. Sadly, it's an equally easy proof that you could never find such a world even if you had interstellar teleportation so you could visit lots and lots of star systems in hardly any time. That might change after we develop DA's Improbability Drive! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Here on this island, there is this wonderful black box... R. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention snip It's an easy proof that in an infinite universe there's a world where magic works. Sadly, it's an equally easy proof that you could never find such a world even if you had interstellar teleportation so you could visit lots and lots of star systems in hardly any time.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
At the risk of replowing the same field, of course intention and belief play a role at some level. For example, people can never win at the slots unless they have sufficient belief to actually put the coin into the machine and push the button. If the expected belief is not fulfilled, the conclusion is that the belief was not strong enough. If you win, the belief was clearly justified. Educated people now know that the belief, in this case, had no effect except to start the process. While this is a trivial example, the same process occurs in all actions, frequently where the relationship between belief and outcome is not so clear. Superstition relies on this ambiguity while science attempts to show the underlying process. Unfortunately, many people are not educated enough to understand what is already known and enough true ignorance remains to give support to the belief in magic. To make matters even more confusing, while science attempts to sort out the actions in the material world, I believe the spiritual world can always throw in a joker to confuse the issue. This is how religion gets its power. In addition, must people feel inadequate in their ability to control reality using their knowledge. Instead a strong belief, which everyone has without effort, or faith in a God, which requires no knowledge, are used as a substitute for skill. It is sometimes difficult when exploring this subject to separate the true reality from the substitution, especially when the true reality is scary and the substitution is entertaining and loving. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: There's a popular NewAge saying which proclaims that we create our own reality. I suspect most who ponder the ramifications of the NA phrase take the meaning metaphorically, perhaps in the same vein as reading certain passages from the bible, particularly Genesis. Others are beginning to ponder the ramifications of wondering if there might actually be more to this NA meaning. Back in the 1970s, the pre-NewAge author, Jane Roberts, was one of the first to explore the ramifications in a series of alleged channeled writings - the Seth Material comes to mind. NewAge mumbo-jumbo set aside, I suspect aspects of these ramifications have been explored in certain SF novels. Waldo and Magic, Inc, both by Heinlein are probably the best known. If you've ever heard someone refer to a remote manipulator as a waldo then you've heard of the first of these. The Childe cycle of Gordon Dickson explored a chunk of the idea in Necromancer but Dickson dropped it later on in the series (it makes for a rather hard to manage world). The Practice Effect explores a cute variation on it; can't recall the author. Many, many other books have touched on the notion that belief can make it so. It's an easy proof that in an infinite universe there's a world where magic works. Sadly, it's an equally easy proof that you could never find such a world even if you had interstellar teleportation so you could visit lots and lots of star systems in hardly any time.
Re: [Vo]:Another BLP PR blurb, this one with a photo
On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote: --- OrionWorks wrote: I assume the photo is nothing more than stock footage slapped up showing of a typical generator that may reside at a utility plant and has absolutely nothing to do with an actual alleged BLP prototype Correct. There is zero connection of this image to BLP. The faceplate in the image says Fuji: which I believe it to be a model name of generators made by Hitachi: http://www-pis.hitachi.co.jp/large-generator/product/lineup/index.html If you want to see what appears to be the actual photon on the original web site check out the photo titled The outline of Noshiro No. 1 Thermal Power station: http://tinyurl.com/3wjds5 Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Another BLP PR blurb, this one with a photo
The photo is stock. If one studies the Commercialization ... paper and then looks at the BLP website, the thumbnail pix will begin to be recongnizable. Right-clicking and going to 'Properties' will yield some titles. The paper describes tests using the cylindrical calorimeters in the thumbnails. The tests are in a batch mode as stated and are a prototype in the sense that the solid fuel is prepared and processed on a modest scale. Quoting from a post by Mills, = The cell is sealed with 1 kg R-Ni support and less than 5 g NaOH dopant to form molecular NaH catalyst/H source with additional H from R-Ni in a regenerating cycle (see reactions in paper). The cell is heated with the external heaters until the hydrino reaction is initiated, then zero input power is required. Figure 21 shows that the power is turned off shortly afterwards, but we currently turn it off at the pint of the initiation of the reaction in current demonstrations. The temperature rise is then very dramatic, 85.5°C to 518°C in 35 s, compared to that previously caused by the 800 W input. Following the experiment, helium is introduced to the vacuum vessel containing the cell to increase the heat transfer rate. Helium is very effective at transferring the energy released to the coolant. We have performed tests that show that the energy is released during the temperature excursion. Then, the measured energy release of 753.1 kJ divided by the time duration of the temperature rise during the exothermic event, 35 s, gives nominally 21.5 kW. Based on tests of the system response, the time constant for the temperature to rise is much greater than the reaction time constant, and the actual power is conservatively 50 kW. = The significant task remaining is to automate the process of preparation and reconstitution of the fuel. Since conventional chemistry is involved, it is in principle doable, but doing may require clever engineering and iterations to get it right. Typically such projects are far more costly than one might think. With time it will get easier and then ordinary and miniaturized for the proverbial water heater and lawnmower. Intermediate steps may include service station hydrogen generators for modified gasoline cars, high capacity battery chargers for BLP-battery vehicles, etc. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:47 AM Subject: [Vo]:Another BLP PR blurb, this one with a photo Another in an endless series of BLP PR aftershocks: See: http://www.dosci.org/energy/thermal-power-generator-to-revolutionize-the-world/ or http://tinyurl.com/5zhlta This brief post comes with a photograph of what looks like a generating facility. No caption. No description of what the photograph depicts. I assume the photo is nothing more than stock footage slapped up showing of a typical generator that may reside at a utility plant and has absolutely nothing to do with an actual alleged BLP prototype that may be in the process of being assembled. But if someone wishes to correct me, I'm all ears! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
FWIW - and to rescue the subject of intent from the more obscure realms of SciFi and try to shine some light onto its deeper hidden meaning, consider the film noir: Dark City ... ...which Roger Ebert calls one of the greatest films of all time. He even taught a University film school class on this single film (choosing it as the focus over such classics as Metropolis, 2001, Blade Runner and Matrix). Trouble is- it is almost unknown, and even dedicated film buffs missed it, or were unimpressed ... until they get the key. I didn't understand this film either until the second or third time, and wouldn't have given it another viewing without having heard of Ebert's respect for it and his film class. Very few film critics understood the deep layered metaphor of the strangers... Not even sure Roger gives it the emphasis it deserves. Anyway- to cut to the chase, the strangers who seem so ominous at first are not aliens, demons or confused angles -- but they are hidden controllers in one sense: an intent to change things for the better, even if things do not always work out that way. The strangers can be either good and evil, and just as in the Matrix, we (as Neo) are never sure that understanding our true nature was a pleasant call. Perhaps the more we can hide our true nature, the better - oops, shoulda taken the other pill ;-) The strangers are us. All of us, or more specifically they are our true identity and spiritual essence, which is not always good, and like them, we rebuild our world every day- or at midnight as the case may be. The world does not literally stop and get rebuilt, as in the film but that is the beauty of literary license. Even if you hated it the first time - watch it again knowing the key, and try to imagine the grain of truth which does operate in our real world, for better or for worse... or at least in the world which we think is our real one. i.e. do NOT get off on the 13th floor. Did I mention, the strangers are us? Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Howdy Ed, By asking for a return to science, this theme, begun by Jones is beginning to reach a level of scientific inquiry, fitting of Vorts. Solomon expressed his opinion that time and chance happens to us all. This profound wisdom does not escape Jones in his musings. There can be an entire trioloxy of writings on one simple observation .. say for example..the story of David and Goliath in 1 Sam:17... if one can get past the religious aspect of the account, the story becomes an interesting exercize in mental gymnastics. Most of the elements of which novels are composed are contained in this seeming fairy tale of a boy slaying a fearsome giant. Here, out of the annals of history, is captured an essence of what dreams are made of. Remarkably, within the story, the method and resultant is revealed, offered to the world for use, provided one searches. Richard Ed Storms wrote... Educated people now know that the belief, in this case, had no effect except to start the process. While this is a trivial example, the same process occurs in all actions, frequently where the relationship between belief and outcome is not so clear. Superstition relies on this ambiguity while science attempts to show the underlying process. Unfortunately, many people are not educated enough to understand what is already known and enough true ignorance remains to give support to the belief in magic. To make matters even more confusing, while science attempts to sort out the actions in the material world, I believe the spiritual world can always throw in a joker to confuse the issue. This is how religion gets its power. In addition, must people feel inadequate in their ability to control reality using their knowledge. Instead a strong belief, which everyone has without effort, or faith in a God, which requires no knowledge, are used as a substitute for skill. It is sometimes difficult when exploring this subject to separate the true reality from the substitution, especially when the true reality is scary and the substitution is entertaining and loving.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Jones, Ed and Richard continue to transfuse stimulating thoughts into this delightful subject called MAYA - sometimes interpreted as reality. It comes as a nice tangential distraction from recent BLP speculation. Oh, what a relief it is! I'd like to contribute additional fertilizer to a thought vector recently express by Ed. At the risk of replowing the same field, of course intention and belief play a role at some level. For example, people can never win at the slots unless they have sufficient belief to actually put the coin into the machine and push the button. If the expected belief is not fulfilled, the conclusion is that the belief was not strong enough. If you win, the belief was clearly justified. Educated people now know that the belief, in this case, had no effect except to start the process. IMO, there's a subtle point often missed in regards to this conjecture where one perceives a flaw in believing in the intensity of believing or wishing for a specific outcome to manifest. It's not that it's a sign of ignorance that a person believes they didn't believe hard enough and/or sincerely enough that they didn't get their cheese. Consider the possibility that it's how we designed the rules of etiquette. Consider the ramifications that creation is a group effort. When we all agreed to enter the SandBox I think it became pretty clear to most that in order to make our time in the SandBox interesting and educational nobody is going to want to play with anyone who suddenly decides that whenever they plunk a quarter in the slot machine they instantly become jackpot winners - every damned single time. Where's the sport in that? Hey! You Out of the sandbox! Perhaps that's why we created Statistics. In any case, how's that for a rationalization! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
You raise an interesting point, Richard, by this example. People need encourage to believe they can do things that need to be done but are threatening or hard. Stories like David and Goliath, whether it is true or not, provide this encouragement. Missing, of course are the stories of the more common occasions when the giant is challenged and the David gets creamed. Once again, we need to separate out the real reality from the one being generated for another purpose. For example, the reality in the Bible has been modified to promote Christianity just as the reality in the Koran is designed to promote Islam. Both attempt to describe the spiritual world, but with different results. How should a person discover the true reality? Science, at least, has a few tools that can be used. Unfortunately, religion does not provide such tools nor does the idea of magic. Ed R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Ed, By asking for a return to science, this theme, begun by Jones is beginning to reach a level of scientific inquiry, fitting of Vorts. Solomon expressed his opinion that time and chance happens to us all. This profound wisdom does not escape Jones in his musings. There can be an entire trioloxy of writings on one simple observation .. say for example..the story of David and Goliath in 1 Sam:17... if one can get past the religious aspect of the account, the story becomes an interesting exercize in mental gymnastics. Most of the elements of which novels are composed are contained in this seeming fairy tale of a boy slaying a fearsome giant. Here, out of the annals of history, is captured an essence of what dreams are made of. Remarkably, within the story, the method and resultant is revealed, offered to the world for use, provided one searches. Richard Ed Storms wrote... Educated people now know that the belief, in this case, had no effect except to start the process. While this is a trivial example, the same process occurs in all actions, frequently where the relationship between belief and outcome is not so clear. Superstition relies on this ambiguity while science attempts to show the underlying process. Unfortunately, many people are not educated enough to understand what is already known and enough true ignorance remains to give support to the belief in magic. To make matters even more confusing, while science attempts to sort out the actions in the material world, I believe the spiritual world can always throw in a joker to confuse the issue. This is how religion gets its power. In addition, must people feel inadequate in their ability to control reality using their knowledge. Instead a strong belief, which everyone has without effort, or faith in a God, which requires no knowledge, are used as a substitute for skill. It is sometimes difficult when exploring this subject to separate the true reality from the substitution, especially when the true reality is scary and the substitution is entertaining and loving.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
You are right, Steven, if belief were only required, the reality we find ourselves in would not work and it would not survive long enough for us to debate the issue. I suppose we could conclude that the Darwin process has eliminated this possibility. If this is true, then this process would have a low-level recessive characteristic, having been weeded out of the general population. Of course, there is another possibility that can be confused with getting something when you want it bad enough. Suppose, certain people are able to obtain information by mental telepathy. This ability would give them an advantage in getting their way that could be confused with belief being the cause. This, at least, is an effect that science can explore, as has been done on many occasions with supporting results. Ed OrionWorks wrote: Jones, Ed and Richard continue to transfuse stimulating thoughts into this delightful subject called MAYA - sometimes interpreted as reality. It comes as a nice tangential distraction from recent BLP speculation. Oh, what a relief it is! I'd like to contribute additional fertilizer to a thought vector recently express by Ed. At the risk of replowing the same field, of course intention and belief play a role at some level. For example, people can never win at the slots unless they have sufficient belief to actually put the coin into the machine and push the button. If the expected belief is not fulfilled, the conclusion is that the belief was not strong enough. If you win, the belief was clearly justified. Educated people now know that the belief, in this case, had no effect except to start the process. IMO, there's a subtle point often missed in regards to this conjecture where one perceives a flaw in believing in the intensity of believing or wishing for a specific outcome to manifest. It's not that it's a sign of ignorance that a person believes they didn't believe hard enough and/or sincerely enough that they didn't get their cheese. Consider the possibility that it's how we designed the rules of etiquette. Consider the ramifications that creation is a group effort. When we all agreed to enter the SandBox I think it became pretty clear to most that in order to make our time in the SandBox interesting and educational nobody is going to want to play with anyone who suddenly decides that whenever they plunk a quarter in the slot machine they instantly become jackpot winners - every damned single time. Where's the sport in that? Hey! You Out of the sandbox! Perhaps that's why we created Statistics. In any case, how's that for a rationalization! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Another BLP PR blurb, this one with a photo
From Mr. Carrell: The significant task remaining is to automate the process of preparation and reconstitution of the fuel. Since conventional chemistry is involved, it is in principle doable, but doing may require clever engineering and iterations to get it right. Typically such projects are far more costly than one might think. The engineering challenges as described by Mr. Carrell seem entirely realistic, and more importantly, doable from my POV. I have every faith that we simians are up to the challenge. Shoot! We've been to the Moon in back. It is one of the reasons I continue to suspect BLP may very well have finally skinned the rabbit despite PZ's strategically applied skepticism. However, and here's the catch, the development challenges BLP is about to embark on concern me deeply. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they concern me gravely. BLP claims that they anticipate having a prototype operational possibly before the end of 2010. Every instinctual fiber within my body tells me that this timetable will very likely turn out to be unrealistic at practically every corner they encounter. As Mr. Carrell has eluded, no one has ever attempted to manipulate this particular arrangement of chemistry in the fashion required - to make the BLP process self-regenerative. I gather there has never been a NEED to study and subsequently manipulate the chemistry in the manner required - until now. There's going to be a lot of learning and unavoidable mistakes made as engineers gain experience - painfully, slowly, one step at a time. I hope the difficulty of the challenges ahead have been made clear to BLP's key investors. I hope they have the capacity to appreciate how difficult (and potentially expensive) the initial challenge is likely to be. My fear is that key investors may begin to lose heart and begin withholding essential funding. I hope my concerns are mostly irrational and overblown. With time it will get easier and then ordinary and miniaturized for the proverbial water heater and lawnmower. Intermediate steps may include service station hydrogen generators for modified gasoline cars, high capacity battery chargers for BLP- battery vehicles, etc. Mike Carrell There is so much irony in the development cycle. It starts out outrageously expensive and typically well over budget the first time around. Eventually it's outsourced to China and Malaysia. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Howdy Ed, Is is possible to engage in a discussion of ideas without veering off into religion? Yes! perhaps, among Vorts which make for such an interesting group. Religions have perplexed me because I cannot understand why so many reasonably educated people cannot get past religion and establish a personal faith based belief system. Mention of the brief account of the story of David and Goliaththe account is overflowing with the basics of how to view, how to plan and how to execute a simple life strategy. Facing the giants!. In the mind, where all battles are ultimately won or lost. Does one individual's mind victory impinge on the overall direction of society ? Yes! To those that believe... it's true !, To those that don't .. it's not ! Richard Ed Storms wrote, Science, at least, has a few tools that can be used. Unfortunately, religion does not provide such tools nor does the idea of magic.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Hi Richard, I used religion as an example of my point because you used a metaphor based on religion in your example. I agree with you, the organized religions are nothing but power structures that are used to control behavior, which is needed of course. However, they offer very little insight into the workings of the spirit world. A personal belief system is best, but what should it be based on? Where should a person start? Most people in this society start with Christianity. The debate I would encourage is to understand reality, which includes both the material and spiritual realities. The question is how should this research be undertaken. Science has developed tools to explore the material world. How can these be applied to exploring the spiritual world? Ed R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Ed, Is is possible to engage in a discussion of ideas without veering off into religion? Yes! perhaps, among Vorts which make for such an interesting group. Religions have perplexed me because I cannot understand why so many reasonably educated people cannot get past religion and establish a personal faith based belief system. Mention of the brief account of the story of David and Goliaththe account is overflowing with the basics of how to view, how to plan and how to execute a simple life strategy. Facing the giants!. In the mind, where all battles are ultimately won or lost. Does one individual's mind victory impinge on the overall direction of society ? Yes! To those that believe... it's true !, To those that don't .. it's not ! Richard Ed Storms wrote, Science, at least, has a few tools that can be used. Unfortunately, religion does not provide such tools nor does the idea of magic.
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
From Edmund Storms: Of course, there is another possibility that can be confused with getting something when you want it bad enough. Suppose, certain people are able to obtain information by mental telepathy. This ability would give them an advantage in getting their way that could be confused with belief being the cause. This, at least, is an effect that science can explore, as has been done on many occasions with supporting results. Ed Evolution is fraught species that cheat. Learning how to get away with it is all that is required. Perhaps that's why we don't hear much about them. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Another BLP PR blurb, this one with a photo
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip The engineering challenges as described by Mr. Carrell seem entirely realistic, and more importantly, doable from my POV. I have every faith that we simians are up to the challenge. Shoot! We've been to the Moon in back. It is one of the reasons I continue to suspect BLP may very well have finally skinned the rabbit despite PZ's strategically applied skepticism. However, and here's the catch, the development challenges BLP is about to embark on concern me deeply. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they concern me gravely. BLP claims that they anticipate having a prototype operational possibly before the end of 2010. Every instinctual fiber within my body tells me that this timetable will very likely turn out to be unrealistic at practically every corner they encounter. As Mr. Carrell has eluded, no one has ever attempted to manipulate this particular arrangement of chemistry in the fashion required - to make the BLP process self-regenerative. I gather there has never been a NEED to study and subsequently manipulate the chemistry in the manner required - until now. There's going to be a lot of learning and unavoidable mistakes made as engineers gain experience - painfully, slowly, one step at a time. I hope the difficulty of the challenges ahead have been made clear to BLP's key investors. I hope they have the capacity to appreciate how difficult (and potentially expensive) the initial challenge is likely to be. My fear is that key investors may begin to lose heart and begin withholding essential funding. I hope my concerns are mostly irrational and overblown. No, Steven, your concerns are not irrational and overblown, for I have been saying essentially the same thing for some years, that the really tough part of the journey is ahead. In my corporate years I was in a Manufacturing Technology Lab, bridging between a world class research laboratory and the manufacturing plants. I have viewed close up three startups done by competent people using mostly familiar technology whose cost ran in the hundreds of millions back when that was real money. I have no close-up insight on the staff of BLP as to what they have actually done. I have no direct insight into just what is going on behind the curtain, but there is a lot of cheerful noise. BLP intends to hire a world class AE firm to build a utility-class power plant. Such firms have in-depth engineering staffs used to large one-of projects. They can hire squads of consultants. The turbines, heat exchangers, are all catalog stuff. Large scale electrolysis units are also probably catalog stuff. The new part is the reaction chamber and the reconstitution process necessary to get an essentially continuous burn. I would expect several interation of this, working up to a megawatt power level. Then they can start selling power to the NJ PSEG grid and harvesting hydrino hydrides for chemical development. When that can run stably for weeks, design can begin on the next, more efficient iteration. BLP will then be drowning in money as the realization spreads that here is solution to carbon footprints,. etc. and etc. I don't think anyone will lose heart despite transitional problems. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
OrionWorks wrote: From Edmund Storms: Of course, there is another possibility that can be confused with getting something when you want it bad enough. Suppose, certain people are able to obtain information by mental telepathy. This ability would give them an advantage in getting their way that could be confused with belief being the cause. This, at least, is an effect that science can explore, as has been done on many occasions with supporting results. Ed Evolution is fraught species that cheat. Learning how to get away with it is all that is required. Perhaps that's why we don't hear much about them. That's right. Never show more intelligence than the average and never admit to having special talents. This approach will even get you elected president. Continue to act stupid and you can get the country to do anything you want. Or am I just being cynical? Regards, ed Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Edmund Storms wrote: You are right, Steven, if belief were only required, the reality we find ourselves in would not work and it would not survive long enough for us to debate the issue. I suppose we could conclude that the Darwin process has eliminated this possibility. If this is true, then this process would have a low-level recessive characteristic, having been weeded out of the general population. Of course, there is another possibility that can be confused with getting something when you want it bad enough. Suppose, certain people are able to obtain information by mental telepathy. This ability would give them an advantage in getting their way that could be confused with belief being the cause. This, at least, is an effect that science can explore, as has been done on many occasions with supporting results. Let's consider telepathy a little more closely. I think we can actually conclude something about the possibility, or at least the likelihood, of mind-reading simply by an exercise in logic, with a small handful of reasonable assumptions used to guide the argument. Point zero -- a baseline assumption: Mind reading involves information transfer and that transfer must have a mechanism. For the time being, let's assume there's a physical mechanism and proceed from there. With that said, we should recognize that there are *two* kinds of mind-reading: Cooperative -- where the subject /wishes/ to have their thoughts read -- and non-cooperative -- where the subject does not want to have their thoughts read, and may not even know it happened. The first kind -- cooperative -- happens all the time, and it's so commonplace that we don't even think about it. The information transfer takes place via waves in a compressive medium. We call such a transfer talking. The second kind is the more interesting kind. Is there a possible physical mechanism? -- Of course! Brains are more or less electrical in nature, and EMF is a fine way to transfer information. Let's follow this a little farther. Is it conceivable that one could decode the EMF radiated by a brain to distill out the thoughts in that brain? A priori one would have to say yes -- there's nothing obvious which would forbid it. I can think of two examples off hand which support this: a) Sharks can read the life signs of other creatures by their EMF emissions. This is not exactly mind reading but it's a first cousin. b) The CIA was very concerned about printer cable emissions (in the distant past) because it was apparently pretty easy to pick them up remotely and figure out exactly what was being printed just from the leakage. Printers are not exactly brains but none the less this seems like a fine Proof of Concept to me. But now let's take this farther. First, let's think about brain structure. The brain is a parallel computing engine, with many electrical impulses happening at the same time. Decoding the output of this thing would not be simple. This will have implications, as we will see. Next, let's assume that at some point in the past someone was born with the ability to read minds. I would expect this to require a rather fancy *PHYSICAL* bit of brain hardware -- you need to be able to receive the signals and demodulate them somehow. No matter how much post-processing you can do, if you can't grab the signals to start with you are stuck at square 1. Hardware is something you don't get by learning, you get it by growing it ... and from that comes my assumption that this person was /born/ with the /innate/ ability to read minds. This leads us *at once* to two additional conclusions -- but first we need an additional assumption, which is obvious if you think about it: -- Mind reading would be an incredibly valuable ability!! Note that current theory says politics -- the constant effort to outguess other humans and figure out what they're planning in order to outwit them -- provided the unrelenting selection pressure which led to the runaway evolution of the incredibly over-developed human brain. I mention this because it's obvious once it's pointed out, and it also sets off in high relief just how valuable the ability to read minds would be. In terms of outguessing your evolutionary opponents it would surely be worth more than an extra 50 IQ points. So what can we conclude from that? We are considering an *innate* ability which provides an enormous advantage. Conclusion: In very short order the genes for that ability will spread through the population. In short, if *anyone* can read minds, then *everyone* should be able to do it ... unless the ability only entered the gene pool very, very recently. Because, if it entered the gene pool in the prehistoric past, those who had the ability would have parented more offspring and yada yada you all know the drill. Anyhow the point of this is that the fact that *I* cannot read minds leads me to
Re: [Vo]:The Science of Intention
Interesting logic, Stephen. Let's explore another possibility. Suppose thought transfer is common in animals that do not have a complex language. One might use schooling fish as an example or perhaps a flock of birds. While other explanations can be suggested for the observed behavior, thought transfer provides a very consistent explanation. In addition, this ability would have great survival value. Suppose mankind, as we evolved, also had this ability, thus accounting for our success before language evolved. Now, suppose that language, because it is so much more efficient in providing the necessary communication, replaced thought transfer. As a result thought transfer became a recessive ability. Even though this idea has been suggested and explored before by other people, I think it needs to be given more attention. Like musical ability or other talents that are randomly distributed in the population, most individuals would have no awareness of such a talent, yet they could see that some people seemed to know what to do before the need became obvious. For example, some people seemed to win all the time at cards or know when their loved ones were in trouble, etc. The fact that any single individual did not have these abilities would mean nothing, any more than a person's inability to play a musical instrument very well means than no one can do this. Indeed, some people have suggested ways to amplify this ability. Of course, these ideas are not accepted because the process is not very reproducible and has no theory to explain it. (Does this sound familiar?) In addition, as Steven pointed out, a person with this ability might want to hid this fact. To get back to science, a lot of scientific study has been done to reveal the existence of this ability. The results of this work, at least to me, show that thought transfer is real. But like all such claims, this belief is rejected by conventional science. My question is, what would it take to change this attitude? Or is this possibility too scary for it to be accepted regardless of the evidence or logic? Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: You are right, Steven, if belief were only required, the reality we find ourselves in would not work and it would not survive long enough for us to debate the issue. I suppose we could conclude that the Darwin process has eliminated this possibility. If this is true, then this process would have a low-level recessive characteristic, having been weeded out of the general population. Of course, there is another possibility that can be confused with getting something when you want it bad enough. Suppose, certain people are able to obtain information by mental telepathy. This ability would give them an advantage in getting their way that could be confused with belief being the cause. This, at least, is an effect that science can explore, as has been done on many occasions with supporting results. Let's consider telepathy a little more closely. I think we can actually conclude something about the possibility, or at least the likelihood, of mind-reading simply by an exercise in logic, with a small handful of reasonable assumptions used to guide the argument. Point zero -- a baseline assumption: Mind reading involves information transfer and that transfer must have a mechanism. For the time being, let's assume there's a physical mechanism and proceed from there. With that said, we should recognize that there are *two* kinds of mind-reading: Cooperative -- where the subject /wishes/ to have their thoughts read -- and non-cooperative -- where the subject does not want to have their thoughts read, and may not even know it happened. The first kind -- cooperative -- happens all the time, and it's so commonplace that we don't even think about it. The information transfer takes place via waves in a compressive medium. We call such a transfer talking. The second kind is the more interesting kind. Is there a possible physical mechanism? -- Of course! Brains are more or less electrical in nature, and EMF is a fine way to transfer information. Let's follow this a little farther. Is it conceivable that one could decode the EMF radiated by a brain to distill out the thoughts in that brain? A priori one would have to say yes -- there's nothing obvious which would forbid it. I can think of two examples off hand which support this: a) Sharks can read the life signs of other creatures by their EMF emissions. This is not exactly mind reading but it's a first cousin. b) The CIA was very concerned about printer cable emissions (in the distant past) because it was apparently pretty easy to pick them up remotely and figure out exactly what was being printed just from the leakage. Printers are not exactly brains but none the less this seems like a fine Proof of Concept to me. But now let's take this farther. First, let's think about
