Humor is infectious. It lightens burdens, inspires hope, connects us to others, increases our insight, keeps us grounded, focused, alert, and happy.
Laughter is a universal language that stimulates both sides of the brain. It allows us to get messages quicker and remember them longer. We all learn more when we are having fun. Writing this blog is a creative exploration in sharing thoughts that make us laugh, smile, or think. Welcome and have a nice day!
Love Emergence is a one-time non-ordinary event. Love emergence is a developmental concern. The spontaneous opening of the love experience in contemporary westerners signifies a special, "fast" track in overall love-span development. Spontaneous love experiences are both the manifestation of, and catalysts to individuation/ego-development. They serve to open the sense of shared identity, are beyond the ego, change the emotional structure and ethical position of the person, change the attitude toward others etc.
Examination of the self-development of consciousness as it is reflected in live accounts of adults after loving experiences with the gestalt of pure consciousness stand out in their awareness of the interior of their consciousness, and in the awareness of their own development. It is as if their whole being gets "illuminated by love" by the sudden opening of blazing pure consciousness, and its deepest content, including dynamic processes related to development, and become available to awareness and pre-reflective and reflective verbalization.
Phenomenological analysis would potentially classify these experiences as catalytically connected to ego-development given their subsequent processes, such as birth of the new archetypal and meaningful concepts, structure-building, and archetypal transformation. The psyche reformulates itself from the primordial chaos to the order of love, and acquires a "flexibility", "liquidity", and "drive towards integrity of the self and others", which makes it into a field of conscious expression. The phenomenon of wholeness of the self in relation to another could be looked upon as a result of a specific psyche, charmingly identified as a type of Platonic restoration.
Synergy, an abstract concept whereby the combination of multiple inputs yields a result greater than the basic summation of each individual component contributed. Such is the nature of consciousness, that elusive sense that I exist.
Let me explain.
Consciousness is not simple. For instance, two neurons swapping electrochemical signals across their axons and dendrites cannot possibly be conscious. Nerve cells are simple devices, less complex than my can opener, and they do one simple thing, namely, react to the chemicals that reach them by releasing chemicals of their own. Theoretically a million of these so-called simple devices would produce one million simple effects. But what about one billion or ten billion? What do they produce? Well, it would appear they produce consciousness.
In this respect, consciousness is similar in effect to synergetic connections. Synergy is just another word for consciousness.
"Consciousness," according to Daniel Gilbert, "is precisely this sort of emergent property - a phenomenon that arises in part as a result of the sheer number of interconnections among neurons in the human brain and that does not exist in any parts or in the interconnection of just a few.
Heart in a Lightbulb
Setsiri Silapasuwanchai
What about synergy?
Synergetic combinations, on the surface, appear to only need two inputs. For example, two people in love. When these individuals fall in love they share in a force that is greater when they are together than when they are apart. What is this love force they feel? Is it synergy or is it consciousness? Can we use the words interchangeably? Or is it that synergy produces consciousness?
Embrace
English School
When two people fall in love they are not just two simple devices reacting to the chemicals that reach them by releasing chemicals of their own. There is a force existing between them, a presence that is independent of who they are as individuals. Extinguishing this force is akin to extinguishing a life force.
The word synergy comes from a Greek word meaning 'working together'. In this respect, two or more forces interacting may be regarded as a synergy. Two people embracing, two people texting, a bee pollinating a flower, even two armies at war might be regarded as synergies. Contrary to popular belief, synergy is not always working together toward a common purpose. Common-purpose synergies are organisms or organizations.
When two beings share a synergy, when two beings are in love, the love force that arises between them may share many of the qualities we ascribe to consciousness. Consciousness, as it is commonly described, is defined as being aware of an external object or something within oneself. In the case of love, people often describe something "between" them, something that "arises" when they are together, a "force" they are drawn toward. Whether or not this love force has sentience, awareness, or the ability to experience or feel, or have a sense of selfhood, an executive control system, it is unknown, but the idea that it comes into existence gives us reason to question the nature of consciousness outside the human experience.
Could consciousness exist in other forms? The question sounds so simple it is difficult not to immediately say "Yes"(for an open mind) or "No" (for a pre-biased mind). If we define consciousness as awareness, one could argue that every aspect of existence is conscious, expressing this state differently according to its own state of existence, but conscious, nonetheless.
Standard models of consciousness call for a human being, but if we do not know how or from whence consciousness arises, how can we be certain that it is held within the human mechanism? The human mechanism may participate or serve as a conduit for this force - whether this force only occurs inside a solid, by a synergy that occurs when forces between particles are so strong the particles cannot move freely and can only vibrate - but the force itself appears independent of the shape and leaves the body once the life force expires.
Thus it is reasonable to consider the love force that arises between lovers as a kind of consciousness held in a different state. Perhaps physicists will someday have the ability to measure states (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, Bose-Einstein condensates, neutron-degenerate matter) more exotic (a quark-gluon plasma) than those currently considered, or to measure theoretical states such as the love force that exists between human beings.
Perhaps it is not just the body that acts upon the soul... perhaps the soul and body (composed of varying degrees of vibrating frequencies bound together in a multitude of attracted and in close proximity particles), are not just acting upon one another... perhaps they are being equally acted upon by neighboring particles.
The combination of which can harmonize the body and soul in a way that duality dissipates into complete and utter unity.
Revisiting these concepts this afternoon, I found myself:
thinking about how the particles and waves of particles in our bodies must have energie gaps (bandgaps) ... a place where the differences between the energetic particles that compose our bodies are free to orbit, kind of like a way station between the particles that bind our material bodies together (in this time/space/location) and the particles we encounter (in our environment, in others) ... if you think about it, a single gap could hold a wide range of energies ... I wonder if energetic transmutation occurs somewhere here? where this gap expands as energies come and go and then make their way to their corresponding particle pair/opposite. In my mind, the carrier density peaks slightly above the band edge, because the density of the states vanish at the band edge. I would further hypothesize that the density of states has a singularity at the band edge. But what do I know?
Falling in Love at the Quantum Level
People who are in love have a glow about them, the appearance of a wavelength-specific optical emission from energetically ignited mirrored-particles. (The term 'energetically ignited mirrored-particles' refers to the heat that arises within each being when in proximity to similar particles held within or emitted from the object of their affection.)
This optical emission differs from the usual radiation in hot materials in that its spectrum is strongly peaked at energies that correspond to being in proximity to well-suited particles, and is polarized along the axis of the energetic flow that travels between the beings in question.
This phenomena is much more pronounced in a single kiss ...
since heat transfer from one entity to another is usually too fast to allow a large enough temperature to build in the energetic material. This behavior is attributed to the self-heating of each person's particulate energies which leads to increased photon scattering.
The observed optical emission (heat) between individuals is more pronounced in the suspended moments of early courtship; second, the appearance of a peak can be clearly seen in the recognition of this shared excitation and revisited intellectually.
This intellectual revisiting or creative visualization stimulates the memories of when these optical emissions were at their highest. The simulation results in a suspended state of energetic transpreparation, meaning the particles are peaked and flowing outward in search of the harmonious resonance previously experienced with the other being with whom this resonance occurred; third, the light emission or heat from the beings is found to be located in the center of the channel, where the two energies meet.
Impact excitation between couples is not believed to be the origin of the light emission in these beings for several reasons. First, the energie of the emitted heat (or light) is larger than the energie of the maximum energie transmitted by a particle sans the excitation. Second, the position of the heat between couples is at the center of the channel, and not at the interface (i.e., where lips meet).
The lifetime of the intense heat or energetic transference between couples is directly related to the properties of energetically shared and driven emissions between one individual and another. It is quite intriguing therefore that couples believing themselves to be soul mates make excellent filaments for one another's energetic imprint. To demonstrate the superiority of this soul mate experience, couples claiming to be soul mates are found to be in a higher state of prolonged excitation than are couples who doubt their connection to their mate. Soul mates work well after more than thousands of cycles, and are found to be stable in their relationship for longer intervals, even when outside forces are acting upon their direct link.
It is possible to generate heat between couples when particles become illuminated at high emotional intensities. However, to capture this optical transference, much slower kisses need to be coveted; one approach to achieve this goal is to keep one's eyes open while kissing in response to the particles flowing that are optically active, and use the response of the shared particles or energetic resonances to modulate the current into a long-lasting energetically ignited kiss.
This slow kiss approach relies on three mechanisms in optically-active particles: (1) chromophores that undergo a change of dipole moment when exposed to the light of the other individual, (2) particles that transfer when exposed to light, and particles that cause an increase in the scattering of the energetic resonance when irradiated. The slow kiss approach can be used to modulate the current in a field-effect shared between two people either by effectively changing the differential that is needed to create a conducting path between people, by effectively controlling the intensity of the shared heat or by causing a reduction in the current due to expanding one's vista (eg., directing the intensity toward higher levels of exalted emotions, such as love, adoration, or compassion).
The intensity of the shared particles between soul mates, the dynamics of the charge transfer is proportional to the optical energie shared between the couple. This force that ignites and lights each up each individual (from the inside out) is proportional to the fraction of ignited energetic particles when not in the presence of the other. The rise in energetic resonance is clearly related to the increase in energetic intensity, and is reasonably understood as being in the other's presence. This may account for the fact that couples claiming to be soul mates feel an intensified scattering of their particles when not in the presence of one another. This scattering causes extreme energetic discomfort, leading soul mates to seek out new ways to interact so as to harmonize the energetic dependence of their response to one another governed by a dynamic equilibrium between excitations and relaxations obtained by staring into one another's eyes.
How many people consider ambition a virtue? Ambition fits within the Aristotelian model of virtue. Recall that a virtue is a midpoint between an excess and a deficiency in terms of one's emotions, abilities, and circumstances. If this is the case then we ought to be able to provide an account of the excess and deficiency that lie on either side of ambition.
Let's begin with the desire to get more candy...
This is an emotion that is common to those who achieve great things, to those Trick O Treaters who return home with pillow cases full of candy. In Trick o Treating, those at the forefront of candy gathering are those who have the will to be there, to set the new record for Butterfingers and Milky Ways, or to win the largest share of candy on the block. In such competitive endeavors (such as Trick O Treating with friends and siblings), it is a truism that those without the will to perservere to the end seldom get the best candy.
The drive to excel, to get the most Halloween candy is the emotional context for the virtue of ambition. Comparison with cases of excess and deficiency with respect to this emotion will help us better understand those kids who take off running the moment they're released to go Trick O Treating in the neighborhood, rain or shine.
NO CANDY FOR YOU
Consider first the deficiency. The person whose desire to excel is deficient would fit under the heading of that suggestive neologism of Marty McFly's parents' time, "slacker."
This word is typically used to describe individuals who have absolutely no desire to do anything. It could also be applied to someone who lets their desire for achievement be compromised by preferences for comfort and freedom from struggle.
In order for slacking to be a vice in the world of Trick O Treating, it has to be the case that the emotions of the individual who is insufficiently desirous of excellence and large quantities of candy is out of step with what he or she could gain in his or her Trick O Treating circumstances. Consider, for example, two kids with HUGE pillow case Trick O Treat bags that only go Trick O Treating two or three houses down. Just because their little legs can only carry them so far is no excuse for failing to do better, for failing to roam the entire neighborhood (and a few neighborhoods over) in search of the motherload of candy.
These little Trick O Treaters know they could do better, but instead they opt for going home early to have milk and cookies and watch It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.
These kids might have other virtues, to be sure, but there is no doubt that they lack the virtue of ambition, of going out for Trick O Treat. An ambitious kid like Sally would only give up Trick O Treating for love, but if she didn't get that, if she doesn't get to see the Great Pumpkin, she'd feel ROBBED!
THE MOTHERLOAD OF CANDY
Excess is easy to describe, as it is typically what other parents think when they see one kid toting a huge pillow case filled with candy down the street as compared to their kid's measly little plastic pumpkin half-way filled with candy.
This is the image (above) of the ultimate, self-seeking Trick O Treater who allows his or her desire for M&Ms, Skittles, and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups to override all of his or her other virtues. This Trick O Treater is single minded in the desire for gobs of candy, for achievement, and doesn't tolerate competition. With no sense of personal limitation coupled with the will to use cute little brothers and sisters as a means to get more candy, this Trick O Treater is the polar opposite of the Slacker who won't bother getting dressed up to go Trick O Treating, this ambitious older sibling won't act on anything but his or her own ambitions.
Both types of Trick O Treaters are defective from Aristotle's point of view, which is from the moral point of view. The virtuously ambitious Trick O Treater falls in between their extremes.
THE VIRTUOUS
TRICK O' TREATER
The virtuous Trick O Treater wants to do great things, and seeks out his canine companions to help him, but is not mastered by his desire for candy. This virtuous little Trick O Treater keeps things in perspective, as it were, and maintains his other moral qualities, never letting his love for Snickers overpower his reason, but certainly not relinquishing his enjoyment for this nutty, chocolately carmel wonder.
He and other virtuous Trick O Treaters like him are reasonable and emotionally aware of their love for candy. They choose good candy goals for their own Trick O Treating purposes and pursue them diligently, all the while maintaining awareness that the little ones always come first.
Virtuous Trick O Treaters have high expectations, but not unreasonable ones, and barring torrential rains on Halloween night, can be happy in the broad sense of enjoying Halloween with friends and family. This is the picture of the virtuously ambitious Trick O Treater Aristotle would paint.
According to Jeremy Rifkin we are an empathetic generation. Empathy, that ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is essentially human mimicry. The question is whether or not this ability or superpower is all it's cracked up to be.
It is commonly known that if you wish to be successful you should surround yourself with successful people. It is also commonly known that if you can fall into the "wrong" crowd, such as in high school, instead of thriving on the experience of learning and expanding your mind, you could end up smoking and ditching class.
So, why is it that we are such an empathic civilization? And if we're so empathetic, why are some people still going around committing crimes against humanity? Perhaps it is because they are mimicking the "wrong" behavior.
Empathetic mimicry brings beings together. If you are a cute puppy dog and you run into an even cuter little Bambi, then softness of manner is the behavior that denotes empathy. After all, little Bambi is frail and barely standing on her own two legs. Empathic mimicry instinctively tells us that we must pull forth tenderness from our being with which to greet our newfound friend.
But what about morning sickness? Is sharing your wife's morning sickness, despite being highly empathetic, really the best thing for the soon-to-be dad (whose time might be better served being healthy so that he can take care of his pregnant wife)?
In this respect, it could be argued that not all empathetic behavior is good for us. If a hungry cat decides to befriend a little mouse, to treat the mouse as he would like to be treated, he would go hungry (in the wild).
So, when does empathy promote the common good and when is it perilous to be empathic?
TIMES WHEN EMPATHY IS PERILOUS
When you're a surgeon performing an operation
When you're driving a car and your toddler falls asleep in the back
When all your friends jump off a bridge
*contains expletive
It is probably in our best interest not to repeat behavior that does not result in a favorable outcome for others or ourselves. But how do we stop being empathetic if we're an empathetic civilization?
Not all cats go hungry in the wild. Irrespective of whether or not a bird saves a mouse from an eagle (above), some animals treat other creatures as treats rather than empathizing with their plight and sharing their kibble.
Maybe the answer lies in the word itself. After all, empathy doesn't really exist. Empathy might have found its way into the dictionary, but empathy is actually a misunderstanding of the word sympathy. Sympathy comes from the Greek sympatheia, which, when translated, means "experiencing or suffering (in the sense of together or at the same time)." Sympathy describes all forms of feeling and understanding the pain of others.
Empathy was actually introduced into the English language in the twentieth century by E.B. Titchener (1867-1927) as a translation for the German word Einfühlung.
In German aesthetics and psychology, Einfühlung describes how people PROJECT their feelings into an inanimate object (in the process giving it a certain life and dignity). So, that is what empathy SHOULD mean to folks. But because empathy sounds so much like sympathy and both words involve the projection of emotion, people use the words synonymously.
Empathy involves "harmony" or "conformity of feelings." We have empathy when we share our friend's disappointment when they do not receive that promotion they were hoping to receive. Here we can imagine or replicate the feeling inside ourselves or put ourselves "into their shoes" and imagine what it might feel like if it were us not getting the promotion. For most people, empathy is when we imagine ourselves in someone else's shoes.
The idea of empathy as resonance comes from David Hume (1711-1776) accounting for our interactions with other people. As Hume described it, empathy can be an unconscious transfer of emotion from one person to another.
The minds of all men are similar in their feelings and operations, nor can anyone be actuated by any affection, of which all others are not, in some degree, susceptible. As in strings equally wound up, the motion of one communicates itself to the rest; so all the affections readily pass from one person to another, and beget corresponding movements in every human creature.
According to Hume, empathy is becoming infected with the emotions of others. Rather than being spread like a germ, empathy is spread by empathetic mimicry.
Monkey See, Monkey Do
Essentially human beings unwittingly mimic the behavior of others, things such as fidgeting, agitation, excitement, passion, and so forth. So basically, if I smile, others smile with me.
Due to our similarity in construction, we are wired to relate to others. But what about those moments when someone is feeling devastated or otherwise distraught? Do we really want to relate to their feelings? Do we want to feel them ourselves?
Monkey See, Monkey Dois essentially human duplication. What was it that Hume said again?
When any affection is infused by sympathy, it is at first known only be its effects, and by those external signs in countenance and conversation, which convey an idea of it. This idea is presently converted into an impression, and acquires such a degree of force and vivacity, as to become the very passion itself, and produce an equal emotion, as any original affection.
Way to go, Hume! Talk about hit the nail on the head (unless doing so would hurt the nail, in which case I'm certain that an empathetic hammer might reconsider).
A Hammer With a Heart
After all these interesting insights, Hume leaves us with the notion that sympathy is "nothing but the conversion of an idea into an impression by the force of imagination."
When someone else feels something that reminds of us something we've felt before, we are more inclined to be sympathetic. The memory (an idea) of it happening to us produces a vivid sensation (an impression) via the imagination.
Neuroscience has taught us that neural activity and brain structure can be mimicked from one person to the next person very easily.
If a monkey rips a piece of paper, the same areas of their brains are active when they see or hear someone ripping paper. These so-called mirror neurons are thought to bridge the gap between knowing what something is like for me and knowing what something is like for you.
Many of the same neurons are active when you imagine an experience that someone else is having. Thus, empathy, even as Hume described it, would literally consist of replicating the brain structure and activity of the person with whom you're empathizing.
Monkey See, Monkey Do reminds us that we should pay close attention to what we allow ourselves to imagine, to the emotions and behaviors of others that we pull in as our own, and to the thoughts - in our own minds - that can lift or otherwise hijack our so-called rational mind away from its regularly scheduled processing line-up.
Having the power to replicate the brain structures of other human beings makes some philosophers wonder if we can replicate other structures in our minds. If other human beings are processed as objects by the human mind, then by contrast we could hypothetically mimic all sorts of structures given the plasticity of the material from which we are organically structured.
Mind reading, or telepathy, is generally understood as the capacity to directly perceive the thoughts of another entity. Together with clairvoyance, empathy with technological devices, lie detection, memory modification, and mind shielding, mind reading can be a particularly enjoyable experience - or not, depending on the thoughts into which one tunes.
Over time, women have become particularly skilled in the art of mind reading - but all mind readers know this!
Although many people associate mind reading as being purely fictional - a thing of science fiction - mind reading powers is a particularly intriguing notion with respect to issues of the mind in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. While mind reading is treated differently in each of these professions, the concept of mind reading, the ability to "hear" the thoughts of others as if they were communicating to you verbally, is exactly what researchers hope to understand.
In philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience, mind reading is the ability to use insight and observation to infer the thoughts of others. While methods differ, the result of both skills is the same: acquiring precious information about secret passwords and such.
Now, imagine yourself ordering your favorite caffeinated beverage at your local coffee house establishment. The barista looks distracted, her eyes are downcast and an expression of deep concern is on her face. Without much reflection, you'd probably conclude that she must be having a tough day; you might also speculate that her present thoughts have hijacked her otherwise rational brain.
Instantaneously, you have harnessed a remarkable amount of information about her mind (in its current state), concerning both her thoughts (I wish I were somewhere else right now) and her emotional state (despair). This instant assessment is not so far removed from mind reading. The similarity is present in the final result: you end up with insight concerning the mental state of another individual under observation.
The only difference is in how the insight is achieved: a mind reader can perceive the thoughts of others, usually by hearing them as sentences in his or her own head, whereas we (when we walked into our coffee shop) had to resort to inference to "read" the barista's mind, making GUESSES based on behavior and demeanor.
Let's call the cooler telepathic ability "superkewl mind reading" and the inferential talent that we all share to some degree "amazing but not as exciting mind reading." The first phenomenon has received little consideration in philosophy. The latter, however, is a major topic in the philosophy of mind, which is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of mental phenomena and their connection with behavior and the physical body, particularly the brain.
Even though philosophers are mostly interested in exploring the amazing but not as exciting mind reading ability and have been rather skeptical of its superkewl friend of a friend version, close observation of mind reading powers is rather illuminating when applied to a variety of classical problems.
In reality, this should come as no surprise. Superkewl humans have long since served as an allegory for real life humans, merely with superkewl powers and problems. Mind reading falls into this category.
The problem with the way other people think is a classical issue. How do we justify that we can infer or understand anything about anyone else's mind by using our mind to do the exacting? Philosophers look to Zombies for answers.
Philosophical zombies differ from undead creatures, but they're pretty unnerving just the same. In The Conscious Mind David Chalmers says that "[a philosophical] zombie is just something physically identical to me, but which has no conscious experience - all is dark inside."
Essentially philosophical zombies are input-output machines with no inner mental life. They can replicate human expressions of behavior, body, brain, expressions, and reactions, but nobody's home.
Thus, the problem with the way other people think is this: we cannot know - for sure - that other people are not philosophical zombies because we do not have access to their minds the way we have access to our own. We are "in touch" with our inner states: we recognize our sensations, we experience our emotions, we consider our thoughts, and we monitor most of our reasoning.
Okay, we monitor some of our reasoning.
Well, some of us monitor some
interesting tidbits related to our reasoning.
I think most of us would agree that when it comes to assessing the mental states of others, most of us are not very good at figuring out whatexactly others are thinking. Most of us do not have privileged access to other people's minds. All that we have is observation of external behavior and the context from which this behavior arises. Then, we employ our powers of informed guessing and infer what someone else is thinking. The only determination for accuracy is for someone else to corroborate our GUESSES. Furthermore, we have no idea whether or not they are accurately corroborating our guesses. They might not be telling us what they were actually thinking.
Imagine!
The point here was not to say that there is a problem with how other people think, the point here was to say that the problem is we cannot know how others think. This conclusion returns me to my first philosophical insight: our opinions of others merely reflect ourselves in a period of growth.
(I had this insight at age 14, and despite the many philosophical insights I think I've had since, I returned to this one via Zombies.)
With Descartes as my most vocally persistent philosophical guide there is never a shortage of thoughts rolling through my otherwise Greek mind at any given moment. Short of taking over, the amount of thinking going on related to nearly all sensory or intellectual curiosities processed by my brain borders on the difference between good science and pseudoscience. Some of these thoughts naturally follow Dr. Chandra Suresh and Dr. Emoto across a Slip 'n Slide just to enjoy the swoosh!
While notably there is a good deal of swooshing going on in my brain, there is also a little science taking place behind the scenes. Behind each fictive story is realistic explanation of the circumstance leading to its conceptual origin, be that a deeply held belief or a mere passing fancy picked up on a boat ride to Victoria Island.
Medieval alchemists believed they could alter the true nature, the essence, of an object. This belief is still a realistic explanation for why people do what they do, namely, human beings believe they can alter nature, primarily that called "our" own.
Whatever we do or do not alter is for the more reflective mind to ponder, perhaps it is as Rupert Sheldrake (1942) hypothesizes on formative causation, that "in self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity there is a wholeness that depends on a characteristic organizing field of that system, its morphic field."
Alchemico d'Amore
Andrew Gonzalez
Whether morphic fields explain everything from my Hazlenut coffee creamer to the operation of Zombie take-overs is for scientists to debate, irregardless we can choose to explore whether or not we have a genetic morphic field that impacts the inheritable traits we develop.
In doing so, my mind immediately jumps to my future ability to fly. I dream about it. And like the movie says, if you build it (in my case in my mind) they (supernatural abilities) will come.
The intelligent design behind the nature of my sharings is namely that I enjoy talking to myself in my head. Recording this activity merely delights me.
Playing with our own brains is a delightful activity when what is in your brain is delightful. It can also be an interesting journey, if you've put interesting stuff in there; or a satisfying exploration and subsequent discovery, if you're investigating a thought or idea; or a kooky mixture of oddities that tingle the brain with ideas never before conceived, nonsensical but highly rational thoughts given their context type of thinking. All of these elements are present herein.
Is there an evolutionary benefit to capturing the mind at play? Perhaps. I dunno. Think about it long enough and I guarantee you we'll find a logical question to consider, but usually those logical questions arise on account of a silly, fanciful thoughts in direct relation to any logical absurdity we've previously perceived.
Truth be told, there is absolutely no point to this particular post, but has information been conveyed?
Yes.
Do I still wonder whether or not there is a way to turn certain things into gold?
Yes.
Do I believe in alchemy?
Rather: Do I believe the notion that one element can be transformed into another?
Yes.
Do I think Nicolas Flamel might be out there, living among us, maybe even in Paris this very moment?
You betcha, I do.
Do I think that Mohinder Suresh is a fraud because he didn't initially believe in his father's theories?
No. Mohinder Suresh is a fictional character.
NOTE:
People change their minds and should change their minds often as a direct result of brining in new information. Just like Mohinder from Heroes.
Tuck produced many novelty cards, some under the Oilette name.
The Science of Novelties aims at novelties found in facts or theories and, when successful, finds many. The more anomalies one finds, the more work there is to be done. When there is no explanation for occurrences, wild ones are conceived of and explored ... in the meantime.
Whatever is considered or observed is notated. Notation is the science. What we surmise is a novelty associated with how each brain processes information.
So, when playing in your brain, when sorting the science from the pseudoscience, remember that each scientific paradigm began by forging a new one.
.jpg)
