East Meets West Logic...

[labelwench]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAPK


The cure to cancer being to identify all of those extracellular stimuli (mitogens) particularly in our diet and then to throw 'em out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_peptide

If we were to lose between 70 and 85% of the products in our supermarkets, I would not be surprised to see a rapid decline in cancer and chronic diseases.

Of course, the economy would collapse, and the medical profession as well, but hey, that's going to happen anyway. It's just going to take a little longer and hurt a lot more, given the present course setting.

The majority of people are not going to choose wisely until there are only wise choices left to select between, the option of staying alive, being one of them.

My goodness. Some thought and physical effort may be required.

The goods are odd and the odds are good, that a great many people just don't 'get it.'

Now or anytime soon.

Still, I met a very intelligent young lady the other day, who walked into my office job and we had a chat that much restored my faith in at least some of the younger generation.

She did tell me that she was not like most of her friends and acquaintances.

That's okay. We don't need that many, as long as they are strategically placed.

Okay Lloyd, SB__UK,........when are we planning this move?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If we were to lose between 70 and 85% of the products in our supermarkets, I would not be surprised to see a rapid decline in cancer and chronic diseases.

Of course, the economy would collapse, and the medical profession as well, but hey, that's going to happen anyway. It's just going to take a little longer and hurt a lot more, given the present course setting.

The majority of people are not going to choose wisely until there are only wise choices left to select between, the option of staying alive, being one of them.

My goodness. Some thought and physical effort may be required.

The goods are odd and the odds are good, that a great many people just don't 'get it.'

Now or anytime soon.

Still, I met a very intelligent young lady the other day, who walked into my office job and we had a chat that much restored my faith in at least some of the younger generation.

She did tell me that she was not like most of her friends and acquaintances.

That's okay. We don't need that many, as long as they are strategically placed.

Okay Lloyd, SB__UK,........when are we planning this move?

Throughout my life's work, I had the opportunity to meet and work with many biologists, chemists and physicists, mainly in the paper-mill industry, but also in the nuclear industry. My concern at that particular time was the settling ponds/clarifyer ponds, that all the bio-chemical wastes passed into, at one of the paper-mills. One day I asked one of the bio-chemists how many different chemicals and bio-hazards were actually passing into these ponds__and how do you figure the reactions of so many, to use the proper chemical and live organism treatments?

He hesitated for quite some time before answering, of course thinking his job might be on the line. I saw his apprehension and said, look we've known each other for quite some time now, and you know you can trust my keeping a secret. So, I said; "Off the record, can you actually figure this accurately?" That's when he finally volunteered the information. He said; "It's actually more of a trial and error process, than the actually figuring of reactants, due to the fact math can't yet do this many reactants__we're truly limited at two, sometimes three, then we must start using probabilities and even educated guesswork." I had been wondering because we were changing out the tons of dead organisms, that were supposed to have worked__yet had failed and died.

And that's the problem with bio-chemistry, directly from the horse's mouth__Complexity of numbers inter-actions is still beyond the sciences we are using, for the most part__so cancer is still much a trial and error attempt for many of the cures. We just don't scientifically yet know__for certain__about many of society's and humanity's complexities...rrr

[SB_UK]

"Mans greatest mistake__Stating things that can not be scientifically determined..."

To scale the repeating pattern from the most fundamental level in physics up to the highest possible level ( ? the collective human mind) would be the only method for substrate upon which to define understanding (scientific).

Is it possible?

Yes - it has to be possible because all of reality has formed around a single pattern representing an autonomous process of self-assembly (ToE).

what'd be the consequence?

A complete change in priorities.

what'd be the effect?

A change in social structure

and what'd we do next?

Build that CNS ???

[SB_UK]

posts 1101 and 1102

Absolutely yes to those previous 2 posts.

-*-

Deleted from the post above:

ToE will provide us with a model to define what we can and cannot do (with impunity).
For the most part I think the conclusion 'll be -
'there's no way of knowing'

- however -

- knowing conclusively (from a scientific model) that there's absolutely no way of knowing is a powerful position indeed
- because it'll prevent us from so doing.

Action breeds Reaction after all; always has and always will.

We can ... ... but should we?
'Should we ?' being answered currently by the corporation which counters with 'We should if we can make money.'

Just not good enough though is it?

GM (crops)

alongside

the bio-reactor

as examples of
outcome:unpredictable.

And so ... ...
I guess I'm suggesting that ToE will reduce the number of activities which we engage in
- though will put us in the enlightened state of absolutely knowing that the restricted set of activities which are permitted -
- as safe.

This idea is similar to the novel characteristic of 'enforced moral consistency' which we're about to see descending upon planet Earth
(the inevitable consequence of a water-tight logically consistent model underlying behaviour)
- 'enforced moral consistency' reducing the number of behaviours which members of the species are able to exhibit.

... ... a 70-85%

- 99% reduction in the products which're available to purchase [period]
also -

- and Thank God.

'we had too many
too much
too ...??... ughhh!
and little by little we went insane'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw2UQucC9Gs

Let a little science fiction into yur 'art.

[SB_UK]

Life (through mind of man) is a game.
An assertion which is impossible to refute.
Impossible to refute because it's not wrong

... ... where ours is to learn the rules

and

where as long as people kill each ... ... , stockpile food whilst others ... ...
and
revel
(whether indirectly or not)
in other's ... ...

- ours
to
learn
the
rules

(and fast)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

To scale the repeating pattern from the most fundamental level in physics up to the highest possible level ( ? the collective human mind) would be the only method for substrate upon which to define understanding (scientific).

This would be and is true for either ToE, but not true for scientific understanding of man's self-constructed systems. These, we've had the complete scientific know-how for most 75 years to repair, or rebuild to much better working systems. It's just been the pychological and political will, that's been missing. This is why I keep stating so much about scientific systems' knowledge, which we do possess__Now.

When it comes to complexity areas of the hard sciences, we lack many of the required pieces for full scientific understanding__but, when it comes to the soft sciences, such as economics, politics and political science__which are truly man-made constructed systems__We do have the science and maths necessary to solve our most pressing problems. That's why we should concentrate on 'What we do know...' Money mechanics is easy to know and repair...!!!

It's like if I have a watch or a car that's broken, I simply take it apart and fix it. If I__which I don't have as I'm only a pawn member in the system__had an economy that didn't work, I'd simply take it apart and fix it. Well, I've completely stripped it down empirically, re-assembled it correctly__empirically__and I do know how to fix it, but nobody else seems to want to know how. That's a simple psychological/political problem of one's/others' false beliefs and ideological position/s. And, I'm not alone in knowing how to fix it, but people have become so jaded in their beliefs and opinions, they think it's impossible to fix it__so they choose to throw it away__Not realizing that would be pure suicide.

So, until I and others, who do know how to fix the economies of the world are listened to, we all have to wait until someone awakes to these simple logical and scientific realities, which Keynes knew most 100 years ago. It's man-made__It's simple mathematical-geometric-science, with a wee bit of psychology thrown in. It ain't complex over-taxing conformal matrix mathematics like the hard sciences use, so how about we start concentrating on the real systems' sciences we do know how to deal with, instead of the infinitesimal particulars__there are yet no solutions for...???

Is it possible

?

Yes - it has to be possible because all of reality has formed around a single pattern representing an autonomous process of self-assembly (ToE).

I agree the ToE is possible in time, but we have far more pressing problems, at the moment. What I'm trying to relate is the fact that if enough people were allowed to see the possibilities, in just one area of science, that so affects/effects their lives, then they'd all be willing to work in all the other areas of advancing the sciences toward a ToE. Instead of trying to figure out the ToE on every level possible, we should concentrate on the most acute problem of the moment__which just happens to be money mechanics. Iff money mechanics alone were solved, to so greatly improve people's lives__I'm sure they'd be more accepting of all the other areas of science, they are now rejecting. Then that would allow us to build our true desired future__but everybody running around in circles banging heads over a ToE, is getting none of us anywhere at all.

It's just as I mentioned in post #4:

...

("Standing on the bare ground__my head bathed by the blithe air, & uplifted into infinite space__all mean egotism vanishes. I become a Transparent Eyeball.") Nature, pg. 13. R.W.Emerson

A Single TOE For Everyone? Everything For Everyone? Maybe Not...

Everyone seems to be looking for a theory of everything, but what if it's a theory of one thing, everyone really wants? What if a TOE truth is actually just a very simple system, to solve the world's problems, and not some grand scheme describing everything? Everyone may be searching in the wrong direction.

I just got thinking about this a second ago, after reading many posts over the last few days, and realized I could apply my inverse conflexivity ideas to the very TOE. By doing so, the inverse of a TOE is a TOAT, or Theory Of A Thing__just the opposite of Everything.

It seems much more promising to hunt for one simple thing, to possibly solve the world's arguments and problems, than to solve for everything. And by doing so, it just may be the answer to the big everything problem...???

I seem to be headed in that direction, anyway...

what'd be the consequence

?

A complete change in priorities.

I would question the validity of this, as I've not as much faith in the human condition changing, as you do, unless your ideas have direct bearing on the larger population's physical and economic well-being__Jobs, shelter, food, health, etc.

what'd be the effect?

A change in social structure

Imo, the only change in social structure possible, is thorough reform of the money system__anything else is just a hippie dream...

and what'd we do next?

Build that CNS ???

All well and good for all those who believe the CNS is more important than the CTMS(central technological/money structure) which I do not. The CNS can take care of itself just fine, as it always has__since it's the CTMS that's truly oppressing us, not the CNS__and this is what truly needs a fixin'...rrr

[SB_UK]

-

from Paul Davidson

http://bus.utk.edu/econweb/november%20newsschool.pdf

After reading pages 1-6 - Paul Davidson appears to make a good case for the merits of the pre-1973 system.
I don't really have a problem with any of his recommendations (which I guess are a re-instatement of Keynes).

My key issue relates to the nature of the work which is performed in the workplace
- not in how it's traded globally.

Just as mentioned above, in agreement with lw -
we're questioning the extent of goods and services available
- and not the co$t per se
- or rather the cost to the environment and impact on human health of solely for profit exercises -
rather than who pays what for them.

A perfect economic system 'd ensure that anybody can purchase an X,y and zee for a fair price regardless of geographical location -
I'm more interested in assessing whether purchasing an X,y and zee for a fair price 'll result in our future generations suffering from premature death through not having any of anything particularly to anything.

The question of what we should or should not be trading is a question for pretty much all of the academic subjects other than politics, economics and law -

- politics, economics and law should be subservient to the other (informed) fields of expertise.

As I've already mentioned - I don't see any need for economics, politics or law -
perhaps some fully computerized systems to ease transactions -
- nothing though requiring human intervention.

This whole layer of politics, economics and law (PEL on earth) can be made superfluous to needs -
maybe not tomorrow
... but soon .

-*-

Am I missing the point?

Yes to Davidson -
as soon as we have a framework for what we can and cannot trade.

I have the framework -
- it's very simple and is physical abstraction layer basal and information-rich.

[SteveA]

Imo, the only change in social structure possible, is thorough reform of the money system__anything else is just a hippie dream...

But that requires social change (in many ways just returning to previous economic systems) to undo the current monetary structure.

Any lasting changes have to begin as a cultural/social change otherwise people will simply become prey to the next fiat currency scheme that comes along.

[SB_UK]

But that requires social change (in many ways just returning to previous economic systems) to undo the current monetary structure.

Any lasting changes have to begin as a cultural/social change otherwise people will simply become prey to the next fiat currency scheme that comes along.

Exactly that.
Not the economic system -
- instead the stuff that people do (to trade) within the system.

Where maybe there'll be nothing to trade.

For instance -
if somebody wanted -
they might decide to take a random web forum and spend all of their spare time reading it
- and all at no significant cost to them.

When they're old and die - they may not yet have reached the end of the forum -
- increasing the forum (every day) whilst he was alive.

My point is that information kinda' demands a whole new approach to economics -
- we no longer live in the cultural environment which shaped Keynes.

No more coal pits to mine or train tracks to align.

Not trying to be contentious in any way -
just thinking that unless we concentrate on shaping a workplace (or not) in which people can be happy, generating (or not) products for group environmentally friendly consumption -

la mise a\ mort du travail

- that the next bubble which'll burst 'll be ours shortly after our sanity.

So - two problems
- a dysfunctional economic system being exposed by a population with different ideals.

#1 at 6 years can't seem to stand any activity which doesn't involve a computer -
bored he becomes otherwise.

This observation must tell us something.

I'll wager that many of us here (on-site) were the same; happiest early memories typing code into my BBC microcomputer.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Am I missing the point?

In short, Yes, as my points have nothing to do with micro structures, and all to do with macro structures, that effect micro structures. You, SteveA and many others see the world backwards to the way I see the world. Oh, you're not alone in doing this, as there are many micro-economists in the world, who see the world as do you, but Keynes and all the truly great ones were macro economists, as is Paul Davidson and myself, not micro.

You seem to think human beings are far more important to social structures than do I. I feel human beings are only important to change, in the fact they may be informed enough to help pass the proper legislation. I do not believe in any personal human knowledge of micro systems having any validity to macro social structures, what-so-ever. Macro social structures emerged purely by accident, and piece-meal political changes, along the way. Most all human changes to the macro social structures occurred behind closed political doors, while a few were voted on by our elected officials, yet everyone has seen how that truly works over the last year__They write a bill so huge, no one has time to read it__Then they vote. That's nothing but ligislation by accident__nothing more__and that's how most legislation is passed. NO TRUE SAY from anyone, then a blind vote.

This is why systems must be properly designed__First__to vote on.

This must be done similarly to how I suggested in this post in Arthur's thread:

Excellent ideas Leskey, as you've pinned the exactness of the problem's reality, directly in its formidable solution_the possibilities and probabilities of aspirations and "hope/expectation", as hope and its possibilities spring eternal. Since we can not use an analysis of the particulars without combinatorial explosions into complexities, we must use the "probability/creation" processes by "applying values" to true "sustainability", as you so aptly state below.

Imo, the only way to truly re-ignite the possibilities of hope/inspiration/ambition/expectations is to start seeing through the true mechanics of 'the over-development of under-development' the richer nations have foisted on the poorer nations, starving many to death__Each year. And one successful method, is to use Arthur's 'Subtraction Principle', as believe it or not, this is the exact principle Lil' Ol' Einstein used to formulate his E=MC squared. He substracted everything in the Universe down to the simple lil' ol' photon, then proceeded to create the greatest universal unification of ideas, then to date. This was simply using the universal probabilities of aggrigates/wholes about particulars, to formulate a particular solution__We all have the power to do...

Through the centuries, academics at the increasing demise of its own reputability, has since Aristotle, most continually tried to use the particular additions/subtractions analyses of history's mentalities, while denying the 'Universality of True Values', of the greater societies' collective additions/substractions analyses. We must apply 'The Subtraction Principle' to the 'Whole' plus the 'Particulars' First, to begin a viable analysis anew, to avoid the present combinatorial explosions in the ideas and maths of the 'Particular School' only. This simply means bringing 'Innate Values Systems' back into the debate__As they, and only they, are our true 'Universal Values...'

Einstein already proved the validity of this greater path...rrr

P.s.
If you and SteveA had followed my writings closely and correctly, you'd have long ago realized I see zero validity in the subjective mind, which seems to be where you may be coming from, judging by your and his recent posts. Imo, the subjective mind is just the abstraction layer of the objective mind, as I long ago stated, and you agreed with, in many other posts. Even though both have abstraction capabilities, it seems to me as though you and SteveA believe the abstract subjective is the real mind, whereas I see it as nothing more than a false belief system__from its false ground up...

So, if my guess is true, that you are a subjectivist, let me know, and this would be the next step to clarify__and why__Because subjectivists and objectivists can not communicate with each other, without a synthetic/virtual system to do so__as they see too many things opposite, to achieve viable views__otherwise. I know SteveA is a subjectivist coherentist, as he's admitted it. If you are also, you should let me know, so we can see if these differences can be rectified. Where you always used so much logic and geometry, I have all along thought you to be an objectivist...???

Imo, one subjects themselves to subjectivism, un-nessarily so. To me, it's an un-necessary self-punishment, except where we use our feelings positively__Then that's a simple choice of objectively choosing to engage the body, and the mind of emotions will easily follow__Preferably something positively enjoyable...rrr