From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 00:55:57 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:55:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Whoever wins on Tuesday... Message-ID: <01C4BF6A.7E948E00.shovland@mindspring.com> Wins the tar baby... Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From aandrews at hvc.rr.com Mon Nov 1 01:00:57 2004 From: aandrews at hvc.rr.com (Alice Andrews) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:00:57 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons References: <01C4BF3C.45BEED60.shovland@mindspring.com> <41856942.5040401@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <016801c4bfae$3f6365f0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> Hi Lynn, >What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? Here's the beginning (draft) of a piece I'm writing called "An Evolutionary Mind." At present it's 20+ pages and needs much editing...and I've edited it for this message as well... But I think it tries to get at some of what you're wondering about... (Also, another answer which seems fairly obvious--though not that fabulous--is that they're the underdogs. When you're losing or defeated you can be angry (masculine version ) or depressed (feminine version). Both feelings motivate people toward action... Etc...) Cheers, Alice An Evolutionary Mind Of Two Minds Not that long ago, for about a year, I dated a cute, left-wing economist off-and-on (though mostly off). We found each other attractive and exotic and perhaps even fascinating, but we didn't get along or get each other one bit. It was a frustrating and futile experiment in the chemistry and mathematics of pairing with someone so different in every way-even our horoscopes said we were disastrous for each other. (That a pretty smart girl like me would even mention the word horoscope in a piece for public consumption would probably make him cringe and clear his throat a few times.) But in the process of going toward something so foreign and at once attractive and repellant, I solidified my worldview that there really are two different kinds of minds. Recently, the New York Times ran an article titled "The Political Brain." The piece suggested that the liberal mind and the conservative mind are quite different and that this difference is related to the differences in the way their limbic systems (in particular, the amygdala) respond to particular stimuli-particularly suffering and violence. The author made clear to point out that it was difficult to parse if liberals were born with more sensitive/reactive amygdalae or if their experiences, etc., shaped the patterns of response; and that indeed it was probably a little of both, as these things often are. Of course, in the game 'the nature/nurture debate,' where anyone over the age of 13 knows the answer is: "it's both," you are really being asked To which side do you lean or, perhaps which side do you defend? And in this game my answer is nature. (Though I consider myself an interactionist; and am informed by an epigenetic adaptionist model.) I will defend an innatist position though (while maintaining that the environment has shaped adaptations and hardwiring and that we're influenced by the environment). Why? Because I feel it is true-that much is innate in us-and because others feel it is true, and because there is some scientific evidence that it is true (e.g., behavioral genetics). Perhaps I'm an innate underdoggist with a sensitive amygdale! Because, although being on the nature side these days may seem fashionable to some, in fact, it hasn't been fashionable for most of my reading, thinking, and writing years. The economist on the other hand (or brain) is a social constructionist-big on Freud (and Marx) and early childhood experiences as forming personality traits and very big on the narrative- he attributed my sympathy with innatist/essentialist models to a rebellion against my parents. Yet, I'm an older sibling, and there's empirical evidence to suggest that older siblings tend to conform, somewhat, to their parents' beliefs. That was the case with me. It felt awful to feel 'the truth' and to go 'against' their social constructionist view of things. It took a very long time to individuate. A much better explanation (to me) is that I have a kind of brain that pushes me in that direction. There's no question to me that the male/female; left brain/right brain; western/eastern dichotomy is a valuable one for trying to understand our differences. It may even be better than scanning amygdalae. Here's the thing: It's a phenomenological certainty that the economist and I can't see any other way but the way we do; and indeed, our explanations for things have everything to do with our cognitive style. You see, I can't help think the way I do because of something deep and essential and real-my brain. And this thought in itself I believe comes from my essential nature/brain. I literally cannot get out of it. And he cannot get out of the way he sees the way he does, due to his brain/nature. I am right-brain dominant, female and lean towards an Eastern/collectivist worldview. I think I'm also old-brainy and he's new- brainy. (We can call it the Dionysian mind.) This all seems obvious to me. But he'd probably call it a story, a tall-tale or fiction. He'd say, nice narrative, Alice! when perhaps this difference lies in our blood and brains. Or genes. Or souls. Or maybe I just have access to something that he doesn't always have; or doesn't want to have. It's hard to know. The economist is a neophile. His mind, plastic and flexible, is attracted to new things-even shiny things-from his need to see the latest hippest film, to his postmodern apartment and trendy metrosexual style. Me on the other hand, I'm attracted to old things. My house is old and so are the things I put it in it. I liked vintage clothes 20 years ago and now I wear retro-versions since such clothes exist now, I'm a grown-up, and they fit better. When he goes back in time to understand the world and humans, he goes back hundreds and thousands of years and studies men and systems; whereas when I search for answers I go back 30, 000 to 300 million years, and study our distant primate relatives and even microbes. How does a new, left-brain dominant mind work? (We can call it the Apollinian mind.) The culture at this very moment in time says that (for a female) having a bit of a tummy (as opposed to very flat or muscley) is nice, and so this is what he likes now. But when it didn't-just a few summers ago-he didn't. There are some men who have a hair-trigger sensitivity to culture's ebbs and flows and laws and fashions-while some men listen to something much more deep and primal; who listen to the 'nature' within. (Again, I'm not sure if it's a question of listening to the depth within, or a question of having it there to listen to or not.) In social psychology there is something called attribution theory-dispositional attribution versus situational attribution. A dispositional attribution (inference) is when a person identifies or attributes someone's behavior to the person's disposition, nature, personality. A situational attribution (inference) is when a person identifies or attributes someone's behavior to the person's situation/environment. The tendency for people to attribute a particular behavior or trait to one's essential nature and not to the situation, more often, and therefore, more often erroneously, is what is known as "correspondence bias" and more specifically "the fundamental attribution error" (Ross, 1977). Most thinking people are aware of the fundamental attribution error. The right-wing typically is identified with this kind of less reasoned, more automatic attribution; the left typically with more reasoned and fairer situational attributions. There is no social psychological term (as of yet, and probably there never will be) for the tendency for folks who are hyper-sensitive to the fundamental attribution error or who have a tendency to make situational attributions more often than dispositional ones; their number are so few. (One again wonders if this dichotomy, this difference in attribution style can be located somewhere.in the brains or genes.Actually, I wonder. My economist wouldn't.) When I think about it, my mind is oodles and oodles more fluid and boundary-less, and uncontrolling and feminine and eastern, and artistic and nonjudgmental and non-labely, and okay, a little bit more nutty than Mr. economist's. When I think of the people I know who are social constructionists, these are people who are very masculine, logical, judgmental, critical, controlling, rigid, etc. Why is this so? It doesn't make sense! Especially since the EP (evolutionary psychology) model is innatist and positivist and male, whereas the social constructionist model is relational and female. Maybe there is something to his thing about rebellion! Maybe we adopt these views as reaction formations? Evolutionary Defense A reaction formation is a kind of defense mechanism which protects one's self-concept. The classic example is of the homophobe who is a latent homosexual. Although Tom feels Id-y homosexual longing and desire (having something to do with nature and nurture, no doubt, though probably more to do with nature), he also feels a strong Super-ego-y injunction against homosexual behavior (having something to do with nature and nurture, no doubt, though probably more to do with nurture). So how does Tom, with his strong moral judge/Super-ego defend himself from acting on these Id-y impulses that do not jibe with his self-concept? He reacts against them most fiercely. And he does so because he knows about the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. He knows that once you open the door a little to something, you are just a few more steps from acting on something. So the door must be completely shut; the smallest opening, the barest light shining through, and it's all over. He would love and get in a bed with a man; Tom would be a gay man. I suggest the same thing happens with fierce social constructionists. So, the question is, does the economist cling to his social constructionist view because his real view frightens him? He is very decent and has a highly developed moral sense and conscience. Perhaps he doesn't like what or the way he thinks naturally, and so he pushes it away and goes in the complete opposite direction because he doesn't feel comfortable with himself and he doesn't like the real, implicit, deep-down views he holds because they flow from the way his male, left brain works: judging, labeling, boxing in, always truly committing the fundamental attribution error at an automatic, unconscious level. I, on the other hand, don't do this by nature. I feel open to stuff, and don't generally feel the need to cover up how I feel about people, etc. I feel comfortable with myself and my true feelings and views about people, etc. And so I feel free and easy to be open to all kinds of information. Information that suggests things are innate or hardwired is very threatening to people whose minds naturally have heuristics and algorithms which are male and compartmentalized. My openness to knowledge-and often what is considered 'dangerous knowledge' is treated by aggressive male social constructionists as, indeed, dangerous. But it's as if the ideas really don't matter that much, but that what matters is their (the social constructionists') domination in the ideology war. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons These comments betray a misunderstanding of the subjects. Fundamentalists - what ever that means - appear to be the demonic side of liberals. Onto them - and onto 'conservatives' - are projected unacceptable aspects of the self. So liberals accuse conservatives of all their own sins, and the conservatives become the scapegoats, onto which the community sins are placed. (E. g., Kerry, a profligate liar, accuses Bush of lying.) In his book, _Radical Son_, David Horowitz recounts being amazed at the acceptance that conservatives had for his own failings (the failed marriages, for example), whereas his former radical colleagues showed all the hate and rejection that Horowitz had always projected onto the Right. He says he realized that the rules that conservatives propose are not there so that no one will break them. They are there because they _will_ be broken, but having the rules reduces the likelihood that people will break them, and, says Horowitz, because life works better when you obey them. I found that Radical Son explained the paradox I had often puzzled at. My conservative friends are the most accepting/tolerant of contrasting opinions, whereas my liberal friends are the most rigid and rejecting of opinions that contrast their own. What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? Lynn Johnson Steve Hovland wrote: Sounds like conservatives :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] demons Borderline personality disorder is a disorder characterized by an overuse of a defense mechanism called 'splitting.' In splitting, a person is unable to hold or reconcile two opposing ideas in their mind at the same time, so they use black-and-white thinking to protect themselves from contradictory feelings, gray areas and ambiguities.<< --Sounds like fundamentalism. Are demons split-off aspects of the self that the self cannot integrate and cannot ignore? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsy ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons These comments betray a misunderstanding of the subjects. Fundamentalists - what ever that means - appear to be the demonic side of liberals. Onto them - and onto 'conservatives' - are projected unacceptable aspects of the self. So liberals accuse conservatives of all their own sins, and the conservatives become the scapegoats, onto which the community sins are placed. (E. g., Kerry, a profligate liar, accuses Bush of lying.) In his book, _Radical Son_, David Horowitz recounts being amazed at the acceptance that conservatives had for his own failings (the failed marriages, for example), whereas his former radical colleagues showed all the hate and rejection that Horowitz had always projected onto the Right. He says he realized that the rules that conservatives propose are not there so that no one will break them. They are there because they _will_ be broken, but having the rules reduces the likelihood that people will break them, and, says Horowitz, because life works better when you obey them. I found that Radical Son explained the paradox I had often puzzled at. My conservative friends are the most accepting/tolerant of contrasting opinions, whereas my liberal friends are the most rigid and rejecting of opinions that contrast their own. What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? Lynn Johnson Steve Hovland wrote: Sounds like conservatives :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] demons Borderline personality disorder is a disorder characterized by an overuse of a defense mechanism called 'splitting.' In splitting, a person is unable to hold or reconcile two opposing ideas in their mind at the same time, so they use black-and-white thinking to protect themselves from contradictory feelings, gray areas and ambiguities.<< --Sounds like fundamentalism. Are demons split-off aspects of the self that the self cannot integrate and cannot ignore? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aandrews at hvc.rr.com Mon Nov 1 01:02:16 2004 From: aandrews at hvc.rr.com (Alice Andrews) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] fuzzy vs. linear References: <20041031191546.18070.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <017801c4bfae$6e8cc330$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> Once again, I'm in agreement, Michael! -Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Christopher" To: Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:15 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] fuzzy vs. linear > > >>The only model I've had and the only one which seems > to exist for putting out ideas is male-based > and all about certitude and strength.....in a word: > fuzzless.<< > > --And yet, in order to be anywhere near the cutting > edge in many fields, you have to have some > recognition, if not comprehension, of "fuzzy" > processes. And if you want to do anything NEW, > intuition is essential. Linear brains can always > position themselves as teachers, as carriers of a > tradition or as apologists for the ideas of others. > But without an imagination that can leapfrog > linearity, you're stuck repeating what has already > been said and thought. The linear brain is for nailing > down what has already been covered. It's not so good > at figuring out what's coming next, in a world > dominated by nonlinearity and feedback. > > Michael > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 01:12:41 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:12:41 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons Message-ID: <01C4BF6C.D501BA90.shovland@mindspring.com> I suspect that both sides are guilty of projection. You cannot assert that Kerry lies without recognizing that Bush does too. Assuming that both candidates embody the true state of the electorate to some degree, it doesn't say much for us when the truth becomes a liability. Bush clearly demonstrated black and white thinking when he said that on the matter of Iraq other countries were either with us or they were the enemy. His father demonstrated much more sophistication in building his coalition for the first war. Bush's advisors also do the same thing when they say we had no choice other than invading Iraq or letting Saddam run amuck. Saddam was in fact imprisoned in Baghdad, with 2/3 of Iraq's territory a no-fly zone and the most of the remainder under the control of an army he feared. There were many options that were not exercised. You also see this on the conservative talk shows. If someone from the left suggests that the benefit of getting rid of Saddam depends upon how much it costs, the conservative will assert that the cost doesn't matter, only the principle. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:38 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons These comments betray a misunderstanding of the subjects. Fundamentalists - what ever that means - appear to be the demonic side of liberals. Onto them - and onto 'conservatives' - are projected unacceptable aspects of the self. So liberals accuse conservatives of all their own sins, and the conservatives become the scapegoats, onto which the community sins are placed. (E. g., Kerry, a profligate liar, accuses Bush of lying.) In his book, _Radical Son_, David Horowitz recounts being amazed at the acceptance that conservatives had for his own failings (the failed marriages, for example), whereas his former radical colleagues showed all the hate and rejection that Horowitz had always projected onto the Right. He says he realized that the rules that conservatives propose are not there so that no one will break them. They are there because they _will_ be broken, but having the rules reduces the likelihood that people will break them, and, says Horowitz, because life works better when you obey them. I found that Radical Son explained the paradox I had often puzzled at. My conservative friends are the most accepting/tolerant of contrasting opinions, whereas my liberal friends are the most rigid and rejecting of opinions that contrast their own. What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? Lynn Johnson Steve Hovland wrote: >Sounds like conservatives :-) > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] demons > > > > >>>Borderline personality disorder is a disorder >>> >>> >characterized by an overuse of a defense mechanism >called 'splitting.' In splitting, a person is unable >to hold or reconcile two opposing ideas in their mind >at the same time, so they use black-and-white thinking >to protect themselves from contradictory >feelings, gray areas and ambiguities.<< > >--Sounds like fundamentalism. Are demons split-off >aspects of the self that the self cannot integrate and >cannot ignore? > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 01:42:25 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:42:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby Message-ID: <01C4BF70.FC9A0090.shovland@mindspring.com> One day Brer Fox thought of how Brer Rabbit had been cutting up his capers and bouncing around until he'd come to believe that he was the boss of the whole gang. Brer Fox thought of a way to lay some bait for that uppity Brer Rabbit. He went to work and got some tar and mixed it with some turpentine. He fixed up a contraption that he called a Tar-Baby. When he finished making her, he put a straw hat on her head and sat the little thing in the middle of the road. Brer Fox, he lay off in the bushes to see what would happen. Well, he didn't have to wait long either, 'cause by and by Brer Rabbit came pacing down the road--lippity-clippity, clippity-lippity--just as sassy as a jaybird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit came prancing along until he saw the Tar-Baby and then he sat back on his hind legs like he was astonished. The Tar-Baby just sat there, she did, and Brer Fox, he lay low. "Good morning!" says Brer Rabbit, says he. "Nice weather we're having this morning," says he. Tar-Baby didn't say a word, and Brer Fox, he lay low. "How are you feeling this morning?" says Brer Rabbit, says he. Brer Fox, he winked his eye real slow and lay low and the Tar-Baby didn't say a thing. "What is the matter with you then? Are you deaf?" says Brer Rabbit, says he. "Cause if you are, I can holler louder," says he. The Tar-Baby stayed still and Brer Fox, he lay low. "You're stuck-up, that's what's wrong with you. You think you're too good to talk to me," says Brer Rabbit, says he. "And I'm going to cure you, that's what I'm going to do," says he. Brer Fox started to chuckle in his stomach, he did, but Tar-Baby didn't say a word. "I'm going to teach you how to talk to respectable folks if it's my last act," says Brer Rabbit, says he. "If you don't take off that hat and say howdy, I'm going to bust you wide open," says he. Tar-Baby stayed still and Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit kept on asking her why she wouldn't talk and the Tar-Baby kept on saying nothing until Brer Rabbit finally drew back his fist, he did, and blip--he hit the Tar-Baby on the jaw. But his fist stuck and he couldn't pull it loose. The tar held him. But Tar-Baby, she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low. "If you don't let me loose, I'm going to hit you again," says Brer Rabbit, says he, and with that he drew back his other fist and blap--he hit the Tar-Baby with the other hand and that one stuck fast too. Tar-Baby she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low. "Turn me loose, before I kick the natural stuffing out of you," says Brer Rabbit, says he, but the Tar-Baby just sat there. She just held on and then Brer Rabbit jumped her with both his feet. Brer Fox, he lay low. Then Brer Rabbit yelled out that if that Tar-Baby didn't turn him loose, he was going to butt her crank-sided. Then he butted her and his head got stuck. Brer Box walked out from behind the bushes and strolled over to Brer Rabbit, looking as innocent as a mockingbird. "Howdy, Brer Rabbit," says Brer Fox, says he. "You look sort of stuck up this morning," says he. And he rolled on the ground and laughed and laughed until he couldn't laugh anymore. By and by he said, "Well, I expect I got you this time, Brer Rabbit," says he. "Maybe I don't, but I expect I do. You've been around here sassing after me a mighty long time, but now it's the end. And then you're always getting into something that's none of your business," says Brer Fox, says he. "Who asked you to come and strike up a conversation with this Tar-Baby? And who stuck you up the way you are? Nobody in the round world. You just jammed yourself into that Tar-Baby without waiting for an invitation," says Brer Fox, says he. "There you are and there you'll stay until I fix up a brushpile and fire it up, "cause I'm going to barbecue you today, for sure," says Brer Fox, says he. Then Brer Rabbit started talking mighty humble. "I don't care what you do with me, Brer Fox, says he, "Just so you don't fling me in that briar patch. Roast me, Brer Fox, says he, "But don't fling me in that briar patch." "It's so much trouble to kindle a fire," says Brer Fox, says he, "that I expect I'd better hang you," says he. "Hang me just as high as you please, Brer Fox, says Brer Rabbit, says he, "but for the Lord's sake, don't fling me in that briar patch," says he. "I don't have any string, " says Brer Fox, says he, "Now I expect I had better drown you, " says he. "Drown me just as deep as you please, Brer Fox," says Brer Rabbit, says he, "But please do not fling me in that briar patch, " says he. "There's no water near here," says Brer Fox, says he, "And now I reckon I'd better skin you," says he. "Skin me Brer Fox," says he. "Snatch out my eyeballs, tear out my ears by the roots," says he, "But please, Brer Fox, don't fling me in that briar patch, " says he. Of course, Brer Fox wanted to get Brer Rabbit as bad as he could, so he caught him by the behind legs and slung him right in the middle of the briar patch. There was a considerable flutter when Brer Rabbit struck the bushes, and Brer Fox hung around to see what was going to happen. By and by he heard someone call his name and 'way up on the hill he saw Brer Rabbit sitting cross-legged on a chinquapin log combing the tar pitch out of his hair with a chip. Then Brer Fox knew he had been tricked. Brer Rabbit hollered out, "Born and bred in the briar patch. I was born and bred in the briar patch!" And with that he skipped out just as lively as a cricket in the embers of a fire. From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 1 16:12:31 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:12:31 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons In-Reply-To: <016801c4bfae$3f6365f0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> References: <01C4BF3C.45BEED60.shovland@mindspring.com> <41856942.5040401@solution-consulting.com> <016801c4bfae$3f6365f0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> Message-ID: <4186606F.1030206@solution-consulting.com> Alice, sounds like you have a fascinating manuscript in the works! What you have sent is really mouth-watering. Alice may be onto something here. They do see themselves as underdogs. This justifies the more radical responses. Of course, since the days of LBJ in the Senate (see Master of the Senate by Caro), the Dems have enjoyed a majority, basically until mid-Clinton. During the the LBJ presidency and the 70s the left was clearly ascendent. Now they seem to be diminishing, and demographics seem to portend nothing but trouble for the Left. I recall my hippy friends in the late 60s saying 'when the revolution comes' and I always wondered why we would revolt, since I thought we had the greatest country in the world by far. I thought, "Oh, oh, If the revolution comes, I will have to fight my own friends." Even then there was a deep streak of hate and violence. Tom Hayden clearly wanted people to die in Chicago in 68. I wonder if it isn't also the notion that 'the system is rotten' and therefore one is justified in violence, lies, and any other mechanism. My own experience with the Left in the 60s left me wondering what they were thinking and why they were so angry. I think it is the Marxist underpinnings. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals helped me see the personal life of Marx and how it corrupted his political views. Thanks for the food for thought! Lynn Alice Andrews wrote: > Hi Lynn, > > > >>What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 1 16:18:19 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:18:19 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons In-Reply-To: <01C4BF6C.D501BA90.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4BF6C.D501BA90.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <418661CB.7080808@solution-consulting.com> Steve's point is a good one, but doesn't probe deeply enough. Actually, I don't see conservatives accusing the left of lying. They accuse them of being thougthless and irrational, denying their own thoughtless and irrational sides, as Steve points out. As I mentioned, David Horowitz clearly documents the use of lies by the left to achieve its aims, although he was too honest to remain in the radical left. So the left says "Lies" and the right says "Emotional idiots, ignorant of history." RE: Bush lying. It is difficult for me to defend Bush since I don't like him at all, but I do not think he has lied. I admit to a dislike of Kerry that is probably over the top, but it is clear to me that he has consistently lied from day one. He lied about his war record, he lied saying we (most soldiers) had committed atrocities, and today he lies about the draft, social security, Iraq, and about Bush lying. Most humorous of all, he lied about his goose hunt! (He said, 'We all got geese' but there were only three geese for four men.What a weird guy.) I am disgusted that the Democrats have no one to run behind better than this man. So each side does accuse the other. Of the Right, only Ann Coulter seems to enjoy her own projections, and thus is not their slave. When she writes, it is with a wink and a grin, as if to say, "We're all just having fun here." Lynn Steve Hovland wrote: >I suspect that both sides are guilty of projection. >You cannot assert that Kerry lies without recognizing >that Bush does too. Assuming that both candidates >embody the true state of the electorate to some degree, >it doesn't say much for us when the truth becomes >a liability. > >Bush clearly demonstrated black and white thinking >when he said that on the matter of Iraq other countries >were either with us or they were the enemy. His >father demonstrated much more sophistication in >building his coalition for the first war. > >Bush's advisors also do the same thing when they say we >had no choice other than invading Iraq or letting Saddam >run amuck. Saddam was in fact imprisoned in Baghdad, >with 2/3 of Iraq's territory a no-fly zone and the most of >the remainder under the control of an army he feared. >There were many options that were not exercised. > >You also see this on the conservative talk shows. If >someone from the left suggests that the benefit of >getting rid of Saddam depends upon how much it costs, >the conservative will assert that the cost doesn't matter, >only the principle. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:38 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons > >These comments betray a misunderstanding of the subjects. >Fundamentalists - what ever that means - appear to be the demonic side >of liberals. Onto them - and onto 'conservatives' - are projected >unacceptable aspects of the self. So liberals accuse conservatives of >all their own sins, and the conservatives become the scapegoats, onto >which the community sins are placed. (E. g., Kerry, a profligate liar, >accuses Bush of lying.) > >In his book, _Radical Son_, David Horowitz recounts being amazed at the >acceptance that conservatives had for his own failings (the failed >marriages, for example), whereas his former radical colleagues showed >all the hate and rejection that Horowitz had always projected onto the >Right. He says he realized that the rules that conservatives propose are >not there so that no one will break them. They are there because they >_will_ be broken, but having the rules reduces the likelihood that >people will break them, and, says Horowitz, because life works better >when you obey them. > >I found that Radical Son explained the paradox I had often puzzled at. >My conservative friends are the most accepting/tolerant of contrasting >opinions, whereas my liberal friends are the most rigid and rejecting of >opinions that contrast their own. What is it about the Left that makes >them so hateful? >Lynn Johnson > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>Sounds like conservatives :-) >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >>Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM >>To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>Subject: [Paleopsych] demons >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Borderline personality disorder is a disorder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>characterized by an overuse of a defense mechanism >>called 'splitting.' In splitting, a person is unable >>to hold or reconcile two opposing ideas in their mind >>at the same time, so they use black-and-white thinking >>to protect themselves from contradictory >>feelings, gray areas and ambiguities.<< >> >>--Sounds like fundamentalism. Are demons split-off >>aspects of the self that the self cannot integrate and >>cannot ignore? >> >>Michael >> >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. >>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 16:29:31 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 08:29:31 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons Message-ID: <01C4BFEC.E9CF23B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Events will also play a role. If a majority of the people come to see the war as a disaster then the sands will shift, starting with the 2006 election. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:13 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Alice, sounds like you have a fascinating manuscript in the works! What you have sent is really mouth-watering. Alice may be onto something here. They do see themselves as underdogs. This justifies the more radical responses. Of course, since the days of LBJ in the Senate (see Master of the Senate by Caro), the Dems have enjoyed a majority, basically until mid-Clinton. During the the LBJ presidency and the 70s the left was clearly ascendent. Now they seem to be diminishing, and demographics seem to portend nothing but trouble for the Left. I recall my hippy friends in the late 60s saying 'when the revolution comes' and I always wondered why we would revolt, since I thought we had the greatest country in the world by far. I thought, "Oh, oh, If the revolution comes, I will have to fight my own friends." Even then there was a deep streak of hate and violence. Tom Hayden clearly wanted people to die in Chicago in 68. I wonder if it isn't also the notion that 'the system is rotten' and therefore one is justified in violence, lies, and any other mechanism. My own experience with the Left in the 60s left me wondering what they were thinking and why they were so angry. I think it is the Marxist underpinnings. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals helped me see the personal life of Marx and how it corrupted his political views. Thanks for the food for thought! Lynn Alice Andrews wrote: > Hi Lynn, > > > >>What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 17:38:56 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:38:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons Message-ID: <01C4BFF6.9C4082B0.shovland@mindspring.com> In the runup to the war Bush told us that Saddam had large quantities of weapons of mass destruction, even though there was no hard evidence of it from the inspections going on at the time. Members of Congress were called in to a special briefing where they were told that Saddam was likely to set off a nuke in Washington. Even if Bush did not give the presentation, he is responsible for its content. They often defend themselves by saying that "everyone" believed that he had weapons, as if that belief makes it a fact. But if you consult a list of logical fallacies, you will find the fallacy of belief, which asserts (another fallacy) that something is true if a large number of people believe it. The Swifties who were not in the boat with Kerry accuse him of lying. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:18 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Steve's point is a good one, but doesn't probe deeply enough. Actually, I don't see conservatives accusing the left of lying. They accuse them of being thougthless and irrational, denying their own thoughtless and irrational sides, as Steve points out. As I mentioned, David Horowitz clearly documents the use of lies by the left to achieve its aims, although he was too honest to remain in the radical left. So the left says "Lies" and the right says "Emotional idiots, ignorant of history." RE: Bush lying. It is difficult for me to defend Bush since I don't like him at all, but I do not think he has lied. I admit to a dislike of Kerry that is probably over the top, but it is clear to me that he has consistently lied from day one. He lied about his war record, he lied saying we (most soldiers) had committed atrocities, and today he lies about the draft, social security, Iraq, and about Bush lying. Most humorous of all, he lied about his goose hunt! (He said, 'We all got geese' but there were only three geese for four men.What a weird guy.) I am disgusted that the Democrats have no one to run behind better than this man. So each side does accuse the other. Of the Right, only Ann Coulter seems to enjoy her own projections, and thus is not their slave. When she writes, it is with a wink and a grin, as if to say, "We're all just having fun here." Lynn Steve Hovland wrote: >I suspect that both sides are guilty of projection. >You cannot assert that Kerry lies without recognizing >that Bush does too. Assuming that both candidates >embody the true state of the electorate to some degree, >it doesn't say much for us when the truth becomes >a liability. > >Bush clearly demonstrated black and white thinking >when he said that on the matter of Iraq other countries >were either with us or they were the enemy. His >father demonstrated much more sophistication in >building his coalition for the first war. > >Bush's advisors also do the same thing when they say we >had no choice other than invading Iraq or letting Saddam >run amuck. Saddam was in fact imprisoned in Baghdad, >with 2/3 of Iraq's territory a no-fly zone and the most of >the remainder under the control of an army he feared. >There were many options that were not exercised. > >You also see this on the conservative talk shows. If >someone from the left suggests that the benefit of >getting rid of Saddam depends upon how much it costs, >the conservative will assert that the cost doesn't matter, >only the principle. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:38 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons > >These comments betray a misunderstanding of the subjects. >Fundamentalists - what ever that means - appear to be the demonic side >of liberals. Onto them - and onto 'conservatives' - are projected >unacceptable aspects of the self. So liberals accuse conservatives of >all their own sins, and the conservatives become the scapegoats, onto >which the community sins are placed. (E. g., Kerry, a profligate liar, >accuses Bush of lying.) > >In his book, _Radical Son_, David Horowitz recounts being amazed at the >acceptance that conservatives had for his own failings (the failed >marriages, for example), whereas his former radical colleagues showed >all the hate and rejection that Horowitz had always projected onto the >Right. He says he realized that the rules that conservatives propose are >not there so that no one will break them. They are there because they >_will_ be broken, but having the rules reduces the likelihood that >people will break them, and, says Horowitz, because life works better >when you obey them. > >I found that Radical Son explained the paradox I had often puzzled at. >My conservative friends are the most accepting/tolerant of contrasting >opinions, whereas my liberal friends are the most rigid and rejecting of >opinions that contrast their own. What is it about the Left that makes >them so hateful? >Lynn Johnson > >Steve Hovland wrote: > > > >>Sounds like conservatives :-) >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >>Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:11 AM >>To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>Subject: [Paleopsych] demons >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Borderline personality disorder is a disorder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>characterized by an overuse of a defense mechanism >>called 'splitting.' In splitting, a person is unable >>to hold or reconcile two opposing ideas in their mind >>at the same time, so they use black-and-white thinking >>to protect themselves from contradictory >>feelings, gray areas and ambiguities.<< >> >>--Sounds like fundamentalism. Are demons split-off >>aspects of the self that the self cannot integrate and >>cannot ignore? >> >>Michael >> >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. >>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From aandrews at hvc.rr.com Mon Nov 1 19:20:33 2004 From: aandrews at hvc.rr.com (Alice Andrews) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:20:33 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons References: <01C4BF3C.45BEED60.shovland@mindspring.com> <41856942.5040401@solution-consulting.com> <016801c4bfae$3f6365f0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> <4186606F.1030206@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <022701c4c047$e099bfc0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> Lynn! Thank you for such kind words re the beginning of my 'Evolutionary Mind' piece..."Mouth-watering" makes me want to keep on with it! So thanks... All best, Alice ps If you've never seen, you may enjoy Geoffrey Miller's "Political Peacock's" http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/political_peacocks.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Alice, sounds like you have a fascinating manuscript in the works! What you have sent is really mouth-watering. Alice may be onto something here. They do see themselves as underdogs. This justifies the more radical responses. Of course, since the days of LBJ in the Senate (see Master of the Senate by Caro), the Dems have enjoyed a majority, basically until mid-Clinton. During the the LBJ presidency and the 70s the left was clearly ascendent. Now they seem to be diminishing, and demographics seem to portend nothing but trouble for the Left. I recall my hippy friends in the late 60s saying 'when the revolution comes' and I always wondered why we would revolt, since I thought we had the greatest country in the world by far. I thought, "Oh, oh, If the revolution comes, I will have to fight my own friends." Even then there was a deep streak of hate and violence. Tom Hayden clearly wanted people to die in Chicago in 68. I wonder if it isn't also the notion that 'the system is rotten' and therefore one is justified in violence, lies, and any other mechanism. My own experience with the Left in the 60s left me wondering what they were thinking and why they were so angry. I think it is the Marxist underpinnings. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals helped me see the personal life of Marx and how it corrupted his political views. Thanks for the food for thought! Lynn Alice Andrews wrote: Hi Lynn, >What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 1 19:25:20 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:25:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] projecting demons In-Reply-To: <200411011901.iA1J12013792@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041101192520.12499.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> >>These comments betray a misunderstanding of the subjects. Fundamentalists - what ever that means - appear to be the demonic side of liberals. Onto them - and onto 'conservatives' - are projected unacceptable aspects of the self. So liberals accuse conservatives of all their own sins, and the conservatives become the scapegoats, onto which the community sins are placed. (E. g., Kerry, a profligate liar, accuses Bush of lying.)<< --You've got it half right. Liberals DO project their split-off aspects onto conservative. Conservatives ALSO do it. Whenever two groups accuse each other of projecting, there's a good chance they're both doing it. A "fundamentalist" is generally a religious believer who wants his moral code to be everyone's moral code. Fundamentalists have a low tolerance for heresy, and before your knee jerks, I'll agree with you that liberals too can react in a "fundamentlist" manner to differences of opinion. It is a human trait, and it comes with a desire to inflict shame on others to avoid feeling it within oneself. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 1 19:32:14 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:32:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] lib/cons In-Reply-To: <200411011901.iA1J12013792@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041101193214.5055.qmail@web13426.mail.yahoo.com> >>My conservative friends are the most accepting/tolerant of contrasting opinions, whereas my liberal friends are the most rigid and rejecting of opinions that contrast their own. What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful?<< --I would say the same about my liberal friends, who would probably say "what is it about the Right that makes them so hateful?". Perhaps you get different responses depending on where you stand. Most people are "hateful" to people who make them feel judged or rejected, regardless of the belief systems involved. Most people are very accepting if you show them acceptance. It's easy to skew data by participating in the experiment, no? People often judge others by the filters they apply to their own relationships, which is why many men will insist women are the more unreasonable gender, and many women will insist men are the more unreasonable. Whatever has the power to reject or judge you is seen as the greater threat. So if a "liberal" is kind to me and judgmental of conservatives, I'll judge him to be a "decent person" because of how he treats me. A conservative might get friendier responses from other conservatives and overlook a judgmental or hostile attitude toward liberals. We aren't aware of how we invoke responses in others, and we aren't aware of how we generalize and apply unconscious filters. That's one reason why society swings from liberal to conservative and back again. People have to go to an extreme before they catch themselves, because they're focused on the other side's extremes and can't see their own behavior. I've seen extreme intolerance on all sides of political battles, and I tend not to become friends with those who are more hostile. Since my friends, both liberal and conservative, are pretty much equally accepting and reasonable, I can either congratulate myself on being able to make good friends, or I can generalize and say liberals and conservatives are both equally reasonable or unreasonable. Hard to say which is more true. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 1 19:36:35 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:36:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] lib/cons In-Reply-To: <200411011901.iA1J12013792@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041101193635.82339.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>My own experience with the Left in the 60s left me wondering what they were thinking and why they were so angry.<< --They were probably thinking "My dad is a racist jerk, so all right-wingers must be racist jerks." They believed the Right was hypocritical, hostile and inhuman, based on their own experiences with right wingers. And many on the Left ended up acting hypocritical, hostile and inhuman, because they saw themselves as the underdog. Many on the Right now believe the Left is totally, always, forever wrong. They will experience the same slide into hypocrisy and hostility, and the pendulum will swing again. Perhaps one day we'll reject the attitude that says "we are always right, you are always wrong" and stop playing the liberal vs. conservative game. A healthy person is a balance of both traits, not a one-sided warrior against another one-sided enemy. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 19:52:42 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:52:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons Message-ID: <01C4C009.4C43D8D0.shovland@mindspring.com> It's "King of the Hill." When you are on top you can be magnanimous, but everyone else will try to drag you down. In tribes of monkeys the alpha male eventually suffers adrenal exhaustion from the constant assaults of the "wanna be's." US Presidents age about 10 years while in office. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Alice Andrews [SMTP:aandrews at hvc.rr.com] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:21 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Lynn! Thank you for such kind words re the beginning of my 'Evolutionary Mind' piece..."Mouth-watering" makes me want to keep on with it! So thanks... All best, Alice ps If you've never seen, you may enjoy Geoffrey Miller's "Political Peacock's" http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/political_peacocks.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Alice, sounds like you have a fascinating manuscript in the works! What you have sent is really mouth-watering. Alice may be onto something here. They do see themselves as underdogs. This justifies the more radical responses. Of course, since the days of LBJ in the Senate (see Master of the Senate by Caro), the Dems have enjoyed a majority, basically until mid-Clinton. During the the LBJ presidency and the 70s the left was clearly ascendent. Now they seem to be diminishing, and demographics seem to portend nothing but trouble for the Left. I recall my hippy friends in the late 60s saying 'when the revolution comes' and I always wondered why we would revolt, since I thought we had the greatest country in the world by far. I thought, "Oh, oh, If the revolution comes, I will have to fight my own friends." Even then there was a deep streak of hate and violence. Tom Hayden clearly wanted people to die in Chicago in 68. I wonder if it isn't also the notion that 'the system is rotten' and therefore one is justified in violence, lies, and any other mechanism. My own experience with the Left in the 60s left me wondering what they were thinking and why they were so angry. I think it is the Marxist underpinnings. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals helped me see the personal life of Marx and how it corrupted his political views. Thanks for the food for thought! Lynn Alice Andrews wrote: Hi Lynn, >What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych << File: ATT00004.html >> << File: ATT00005.txt >> From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 1 19:59:06 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:59:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] campaign In-Reply-To: <200411011901.iA1J12013792@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041101195906.87317.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> >>RE: Bush lying. It is difficult for me to defend Bush since I don't like him at all, but I do not think he has lied.<< --I agree, I don't think Bush lied. I think he had tunnel vision and participated in groupthink, because he has trouble integrating criticism and isolates himself in a group of "true believers" who are in a bubble and don't get much feedback from reality. That's not the same as deliberately lying. >>I admit to a dislike of Kerry that is probably over the top, but it is clear to me that he has consistently lied from day one. He lied about his war record, he lied saying we (most soldiers) had committed atrocities, and today he lies about the draft, social security, Iraq, and about Bush lying.<< --Kerry did not lie about war atrocities. He testified what he heard other soldiers saying, and their stories were confirmed. The My Lai massacre was not an isolated incident, and only one person was punished. If we condemn Kerry for testifying about something that was actually happening (he never, to my knowledge, accused ALL soldiers of war crimes) then surely we must condemn those who committed atrocities. As for the draft, liberals may truly believe Bush will reinstate the draft. Many on both sides believe it will be necessary as the war on terror continues. Or it could be political spin, like accusing Democrats of wanting socialism. The line between spin and lying has gotten thin, on both sides, and I think it's the two-party system that is to blame. In order to win, each side must demonize the other. I'm glad the election is almost over, just so we don't have to watch those smarmy attack ads. Bush tends not to lie, but he does allow people around him to distort his opponents' record and slander their character. I believe Bush's weakness is not his own integrity but that of the people around him. The only people fired are those who criticize his policies, while those who deliberately engage in unethical campaigning are rewarded. If Bush were not in a bubble, if he were not prone to groupthink, he'd be a decent guy. If Kerry wins, we can only hope that he keeps a wide enough circle of advisors that he doesn't lock out good ideas and perpetuate bad ones. >>Most humorous of all, he lied about his goose hunt! (He said, 'We all got geese' but there were only three geese for four men.What a weird guy.)<< --There's no reason for him to lie about that, he was probably not paying attention to the guy who didn't get a goose. I think if you're honest you'll find similar errors by Bush. When Bush said he'd worked with Congress to create the department of homeland security, he forgot to mention he'd opposed it originally. Does that compare with a missing goose? The contrast principle is often used by marketing consultants who advise political campaigns. Bush is the "man of Christian integrity" while Kerry is the "flip-flopper". That's branding, it's not reality, and without the contrast, whichever candidate wins is going to have to be judged on his results, not his ability to slander the other guy. Incidentally, I've seen a huge number of email rumors about both candidates that were simply false, yet believed by many. Along with the familiar Dan Quayle quotes falsely attributed to Bush or Kerry, there was the accusation that Kerry would ban the Bible, that Bush used the wrong Bible verse (that one also attributed to Kerry), that terrorists wanted Bush or Kerry (who polled the terrorists??) and a mudslide of out-of-context statements by both. I'll be SO glad when this is over and we can get on with judging leaders by their results rather than by their ability to slander their opponent in attack ads. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Nov 1 19:59:35 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:59:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons References: <01C4BF3C.45BEED60.shovland@mindspring.com><41856942.5040401@solution-consulting.com><016801c4bfae$3f6365f0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios><4186606F.1030206@solution-consulting.com> <022701c4c047$e099bfc0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> Message-ID: <01e601c4c04d$510392e0$1f49bb3f@S0027397558> Alice, Geoffrey Miller's piece is exceptional. >>More subtley, because mating is a social game in which the attractiveness of a behavior depends on how many other people are already producing that behavior, political ideology evolves under the unstable dynamics of game theory, not as a process of simple optimization given a set of self-interests. This explains why an entire student body at an American university can suddenly act as if they care deeply about the political fate of a country that they virtually ignored the year before. The courtship arena simply shifted, capriciously, from one political issue to another, but once a sufficient number of students decided that attitudes towards apartheid were the acid test for whether one's heart was in the right place, it became impossible for anyone else to be apathetic about apartheid. This is called frequency-dependent selection in biology, and it is a hallmark of sexual selection processes. >> I often wonder why an entire student body grabs a social issue that shortly before was not considered of interest to others on campus. With our upcoming election the majority of college students are siding with Kerry probably because he protested the Viet Nam war after he had won his medals including three purple hearts. It could be "a hallmark of sexual selection processes" as Geoffrey Miller suggests or it could be the effects of a collective consciousness in action. Thanks again for "Political Peacocks". Gerry Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Lynn! Thank you for such kind words re the beginning of my 'Evolutionary Mind' piece..."Mouth-watering" makes me want to keep on with it! So thanks... All best, Alice ps If you've never seen, you may enjoy Geoffrey Miller's "Political Peacock's" http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/political_peacocks.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Alice, sounds like you have a fascinating manuscript in the works! What you have sent is really mouth-watering. Alice may be onto something here. They do see themselves as underdogs. This justifies the more radical responses. Of course, since the days of LBJ in the Senate (see Master of the Senate by Caro), the Dems have enjoyed a majority, basically until mid-Clinton. During the the LBJ presidency and the 70s the left was clearly ascendent. Now they seem to be diminishing, and demographics seem to portend nothing but trouble for the Left. I recall my hippy friends in the late 60s saying 'when the revolution comes' and I always wondered why we would revolt, since I thought we had the greatest country in the world by far. I thought, "Oh, oh, If the revolution comes, I will have to fight my own friends." Even then there was a deep streak of hate and violence. Tom Hayden clearly wanted people to die in Chicago in 68. I wonder if it isn't also the notion that 'the system is rotten' and therefore one is justified in violence, lies, and any other mechanism. My own experience with the Left in the 60s left me wondering what they were thinking and why they were so angry. I think it is the Marxist underpinnings. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals helped me see the personal life of Marx and how it corrupted his political views. Thanks for the food for thought! Lynn Alice Andrews wrote: Hi Lynn, >What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 20:20:22 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:20:22 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] campaign Message-ID: <01C4C00D.295F3630.shovland@mindspring.com> Before the election the Democrats put up draft bills as a political stunt. After the election, if Bush wins, they will probably not support a draft, so that the tar baby will belong entirely to the Republicans. If you read up on the troop issue you will find comments to the effect that all of the active duty troops are either in Iraq, on the way back from Iraq, or on the way to Iraq. The people who are in the Army and Marines are being put through a meat grinder from which few of them are likely to emerge intact. I don't see too many white middle class supporters of the war who are urging their kids to sign up. At one point during WWI the French troops marched into the trenches baaing like sheep. They knew they would be slaughtered and there was nothing they could really do about it. At the moment 40,000 troops are marshalled in Bagdad awaing the post-election assault on the 5,000 or so insurgents estimated to be in Falluja. This will be urban warfare of the worst sort, and hundreds of Americans will probably be killed. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:59 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] campaign >>RE: Bush lying. It is difficult for me to defend Bush since I don't like him at all, but I do not think he has lied.<< --I agree, I don't think Bush lied. I think he had tunnel vision and participated in groupthink, because he has trouble integrating criticism and isolates himself in a group of "true believers" who are in a bubble and don't get much feedback from reality. That's not the same as deliberately lying. >>I admit to a dislike of Kerry that is probably over the top, but it is clear to me that he has consistently lied from day one. He lied about his war record, he lied saying we (most soldiers) had committed atrocities, and today he lies about the draft, social security, Iraq, and about Bush lying.<< --Kerry did not lie about war atrocities. He testified what he heard other soldiers saying, and their stories were confirmed. The My Lai massacre was not an isolated incident, and only one person was punished. If we condemn Kerry for testifying about something that was actually happening (he never, to my knowledge, accused ALL soldiers of war crimes) then surely we must condemn those who committed atrocities. As for the draft, liberals may truly believe Bush will reinstate the draft. Many on both sides believe it will be necessary as the war on terror continues. Or it could be political spin, like accusing Democrats of wanting socialism. The line between spin and lying has gotten thin, on both sides, and I think it's the two-party system that is to blame. In order to win, each side must demonize the other. I'm glad the election is almost over, just so we don't have to watch those smarmy attack ads. Bush tends not to lie, but he does allow people around him to distort his opponents' record and slander their character. I believe Bush's weakness is not his own integrity but that of the people around him. The only people fired are those who criticize his policies, while those who deliberately engage in unethical campaigning are rewarded. If Bush were not in a bubble, if he were not prone to groupthink, he'd be a decent guy. If Kerry wins, we can only hope that he keeps a wide enough circle of advisors that he doesn't lock out good ideas and perpetuate bad ones. >>Most humorous of all, he lied about his goose hunt! (He said, 'We all got geese' but there were only three geese for four men.What a weird guy.)<< --There's no reason for him to lie about that, he was probably not paying attention to the guy who didn't get a goose. I think if you're honest you'll find similar errors by Bush. When Bush said he'd worked with Congress to create the department of homeland security, he forgot to mention he'd opposed it originally. Does that compare with a missing goose? The contrast principle is often used by marketing consultants who advise political campaigns. Bush is the "man of Christian integrity" while Kerry is the "flip-flopper". That's branding, it's not reality, and without the contrast, whichever candidate wins is going to have to be judged on his results, not his ability to slander the other guy. Incidentally, I've seen a huge number of email rumors about both candidates that were simply false, yet believed by many. Along with the familiar Dan Quayle quotes falsely attributed to Bush or Kerry, there was the accusation that Kerry would ban the Bible, that Bush used the wrong Bible verse (that one also attributed to Kerry), that terrorists wanted Bush or Kerry (who polled the terrorists??) and a mudslide of out-of-context statements by both. I'll be SO glad when this is over and we can get on with judging leaders by their results rather than by their ability to slander their opponent in attack ads. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 1 20:23:10 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:23:10 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons Message-ID: <01C4C00D.8DE3F050.shovland@mindspring.com> Complex system theory also applies to this. At present the conformity enforcers are on the side of war, with diversity generators against it. If a disaster unfolds, the conformity enforcers will align against the war, and the diversity generators will move on to the next big thing, which is likely to be the Energy Shift. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 12:00 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org; Alice Andrews Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Alice, Geoffrey Miller's piece is exceptional. >>More subtley, because mating is a social game in which the attractiveness of a behavior depends on how many other people are already producing that behavior, political ideology evolves under the unstable dynamics of game theory, not as a process of simple optimization given a set of self-interests. This explains why an entire student body at an American university can suddenly act as if they care deeply about the political fate of a country that they virtually ignored the year before. The courtship arena simply shifted, capriciously, from one political issue to another, but once a sufficient number of students decided that attitudes towards apartheid were the acid test for whether one's heart was in the right place, it became impossible for anyone else to be apathetic about apartheid. This is called frequency-dependent selection in biology, and it is a hallmark of sexual selection processes. >> I often wonder why an entire student body grabs a social issue that shortly before was not considered of interest to others on campus. With our upcoming election the majority of college students are siding with Kerry probably because he protested the Viet Nam war after he had won his medals including three purple hearts. It could be "a hallmark of sexual selection processes" as Geoffrey Miller suggests or it could be the effects of a collective consciousness in action. Thanks again for "Political Peacocks". Gerry Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Lynn! Thank you for such kind words re the beginning of my 'Evolutionary Mind' piece..."Mouth-watering" makes me want to keep on with it! So thanks... All best, Alice ps If you've never seen, you may enjoy Geoffrey Miller's "Political Peacock's" http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/political_peacocks.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Alice, sounds like you have a fascinating manuscript in the works! What you have sent is really mouth-watering. Alice may be onto something here. They do see themselves as underdogs. This justifies the more radical responses. Of course, since the days of LBJ in the Senate (see Master of the Senate by Caro), the Dems have enjoyed a majority, basically until mid-Clinton. During the the LBJ presidency and the 70s the left was clearly ascendent. Now they seem to be diminishing, and demographics seem to portend nothing but trouble for the Left. I recall my hippy friends in the late 60s saying 'when the revolution comes' and I always wondered why we would revolt, since I thought we had the greatest country in the world by far. I thought, "Oh, oh, If the revolution comes, I will have to fight my own friends." Even then there was a deep streak of hate and violence. Tom Hayden clearly wanted people to die in Chicago in 68. I wonder if it isn't also the notion that 'the system is rotten' and therefore one is justified in violence, lies, and any other mechanism. My own experience with the Left in the 60s left me wondering what they were thinking and why they were so angry. I think it is the Marxist underpinnings. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals helped me see the personal life of Marx and how it corrupted his political views. Thanks for the food for thought! Lynn Alice Andrews wrote: Hi Lynn, >What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych << File: ATT00008.html >> << File: ATT00009.txt >> From aandrews at hvc.rr.com Mon Nov 1 21:46:28 2004 From: aandrews at hvc.rr.com (Alice Andrews) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:46:28 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] demons References: <01C4BF3C.45BEED60.shovland@mindspring.com> <41856942.5040401@solution-consulting.com> <016801c4bfae$3f6365f0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> <4186606F.1030206@solution-consulting.com> <022701c4c047$e099bfc0$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> <01e601c4c04d$510392e0$1f49bb3f@S0027397558> Message-ID: <03ff01c4c05c$40349a90$47f4ae44@CallaStudios> Hi Gerry...Glad you liked! Lots of femme energy on paleo these days--I like it! ; ) My best to you! Alice ----- Original Message ----- From: Geraldine Reinhardt To: The new improved paleopsych list Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org ; Alice Andrews Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Alice, Geoffrey Miller's piece is exceptional. >>More subtley, because mating is a social game in which the attractiveness of a behavior depends on how many other people are already producing that behavior, political ideology evolves under the unstable dynamics of game theory, not as a process of simple optimization given a set of self-interests. This explains why an entire student body at an American university can suddenly act as if they care deeply about the political fate of a country that they virtually ignored the year before. The courtship arena simply shifted, capriciously, from one political issue to another, but once a sufficient number of students decided that attitudes towards apartheid were the acid test for whether one's heart was in the right place, it became impossible for anyone else to be apathetic about apartheid. This is called frequency-dependent selection in biology, and it is a hallmark of sexual selection processes. >> I often wonder why an entire student body grabs a social issue that shortly before was not considered of interest to others on campus. With our upcoming election the majority of college students are siding with Kerry probably because he protested the Viet Nam war after he had won his medals including three purple hearts. It could be "a hallmark of sexual selection processes" as Geoffrey Miller suggests or it could be the effects of a collective consciousness in action. Thanks again for "Political Peacocks". Gerry Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Andrews To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Lynn! Thank you for such kind words re the beginning of my 'Evolutionary Mind' piece..."Mouth-watering" makes me want to keep on with it! So thanks... All best, Alice ps If you've never seen, you may enjoy Geoffrey Miller's "Political Peacock's" http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/political_peacocks.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] demons Alice, sounds like you have a fascinating manuscript in the works! What you have sent is really mouth-watering. Alice may be onto something here. They do see themselves as underdogs. This justifies the more radical responses. Of course, since the days of LBJ in the Senate (see Master of the Senate by Caro), the Dems have enjoyed a majority, basically until mid-Clinton. During the the LBJ presidency and the 70s the left was clearly ascendent. Now they seem to be diminishing, and demographics seem to portend nothing but trouble for the Left. I recall my hippy friends in the late 60s saying 'when the revolution comes' and I always wondered why we would revolt, since I thought we had the greatest country in the world by far. I thought, "Oh, oh, If the revolution comes, I will have to fight my own friends." Even then there was a deep streak of hate and violence. Tom Hayden clearly wanted people to die in Chicago in 68. I wonder if it isn't also the notion that 'the system is rotten' and therefore one is justified in violence, lies, and any other mechanism. My own experience with the Left in the 60s left me wondering what they were thinking and why they were so angry. I think it is the Marxist underpinnings. Paul Johnson's Intellectuals helped me see the personal life of Marx and how it corrupted his political views. Thanks for the food for thought! Lynn Alice Andrews wrote: Hi Lynn, >What is it about the Left that makes them so hateful? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Nov 2 01:42:27 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:42:27 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] campaign In-Reply-To: <20041101195906.87317.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041101195906.87317.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4186E603.4040300@solution-consulting.com> Michael's exigesis perfectly illustrates why I have a knot in my stomach about voting tomorrow. Bush's decisionmaking is suspect, Kerry's reliability is similarly suspect. What is a boy to do? Michael Christopher wrote: >>>RE: Bush lying. It is difficult for me to defend >>> >>> >Bush since I don't like him at all, but I do not think >he has lied.<< > >--I agree, I don't think Bush lied. I think he had >tunnel vision and participated in groupthink, because >he has trouble integrating criticism and isolates >himself in a group of "true believers" who are in a >bubble and don't get much feedback from reality. >That's not the same as deliberately lying. > > > >>>I admit to a dislike of Kerry that is probably over >>> >>> >the top, but it is clear to me that he has >consistently lied from day one. He lied about his >war record, he lied saying we (most soldiers) had >committed atrocities, and today he lies about the >draft, social security, Iraq, and about Bush lying.<< > >--Kerry did not lie about war atrocities. He testified >what he heard other soldiers saying, and their stories >were confirmed. The My Lai massacre was not an >isolated incident, and only one person was punished. >If we condemn Kerry for testifying about something >that was actually happening (he never, to my >knowledge, accused ALL soldiers of war crimes) then >surely we must condemn those who committed atrocities. > > > Well, he said he committed atrocities, and he didn't. He said he threw the medals, and he didn't throw his. He almost certainly had a dishonorable discharge, but that has been hushed up. But what bothers me is the other issues. He used fear, undertainty, and doubt to get votes. I long for a leader who will use vision, inspiration, and commitment. >As for the draft, liberals may truly believe Bush will >reinstate the draft. Many on both sides believe it >will be necessary as the war on terror continues. Or >it could be political spin, like accusing Democrats of >wanting socialism. The line between spin and lying has >gotten thin, on both sides, and I think it's the >two-party system that is to blame. In order to win, >each side must demonize the other. I'm glad the >election is almost over, just so we don't have to >watch those smarmy attack ads. > > Good point. >Bush tends not to lie, but he does allow people around >him to distort his opponents' record and slander their >character. I believe Bush's weakness is not his own >integrity but that of the people around him. The only >people fired are those who criticize his policies, >while those who deliberately engage in unethical >campaigning are rewarded. If Bush were not in a >bubble, if he were not prone to groupthink, he'd be a >decent guy. If Kerry wins, we can only hope that he >keeps a wide enough circle of advisors that he doesn't >lock out good ideas and perpetuate bad ones. > > > >>>Most humorous of all, he lied about his goose hunt! >>> >>> >(He said, 'We all got geese' but there were only three >geese for four men.What a weird guy.)<< > >--There's no reason for him to lie about that, he was >probably not paying attention to the guy who didn't >get a goose. I think if you're honest you'll find >similar errors by Bush. When Bush said he'd worked >with Congress to create the department of homeland >security, he forgot to mention he'd opposed it >originally. Does that compare with a missing goose? > >The contrast principle is often used by marketing >consultants who advise political campaigns. Bush is >the "man of Christian integrity" while Kerry is the >"flip-flopper". That's branding, it's not reality, and >without the contrast, whichever candidate wins is >going to have to be judged on his results, not his >ability to slander the other guy. > >Incidentally, I've seen a huge number of email rumors >about both candidates that were simply false, yet >believed by many. Along with the familiar Dan Quayle >quotes falsely attributed to Bush or Kerry, there was >the accusation that Kerry would ban the Bible, that >Bush used the wrong Bible verse (that one also >attributed to Kerry), that terrorists wanted Bush or >Kerry (who polled the terrorists??) and a mudslide of >out-of-context statements by both. I'll be SO glad >when this is over and we can get on with judging >leaders by their results rather than by their ability >to slander their opponent in attack ads. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. >www.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 2 02:30:23 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:30:23 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] campaign Message-ID: <01C4C040.DAA2F890.shovland@mindspring.com> I think it boils down to a need for a change in direction. We may not like much of what Kerry offers, but Bush will not change. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 5:42 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] campaign Michael's exigesis perfectly illustrates why I have a knot in my stomach about voting tomorrow. Bush's decisionmaking is suspect, Kerry's reliability is similarly suspect. What is a boy to do? Michael Christopher wrote: >>>RE: Bush lying. It is difficult for me to defend >>> >>> >Bush since I don't like him at all, but I do not think >he has lied.<< > >--I agree, I don't think Bush lied. I think he had >tunnel vision and participated in groupthink, because >he has trouble integrating criticism and isolates >himself in a group of "true believers" who are in a >bubble and don't get much feedback from reality. >That's not the same as deliberately lying. > > > >>>I admit to a dislike of Kerry that is probably over >>> >>> >the top, but it is clear to me that he has >consistently lied from day one. He lied about his >war record, he lied saying we (most soldiers) had >committed atrocities, and today he lies about the >draft, social security, Iraq, and about Bush lying.<< > >--Kerry did not lie about war atrocities. He testified >what he heard other soldiers saying, and their stories >were confirmed. The My Lai massacre was not an >isolated incident, and only one person was punished. >If we condemn Kerry for testifying about something >that was actually happening (he never, to my >knowledge, accused ALL soldiers of war crimes) then >surely we must condemn those who committed atrocities. > > > Well, he said he committed atrocities, and he didn't. He said he threw the medals, and he didn't throw his. He almost certainly had a dishonorable discharge, but that has been hushed up. But what bothers me is the other issues. He used fear, undertainty, and doubt to get votes. I long for a leader who will use vision, inspiration, and commitment. >As for the draft, liberals may truly believe Bush will >reinstate the draft. Many on both sides believe it >will be necessary as the war on terror continues. Or >it could be political spin, like accusing Democrats of >wanting socialism. The line between spin and lying has >gotten thin, on both sides, and I think it's the >two-party system that is to blame. In order to win, >each side must demonize the other. I'm glad the >election is almost over, just so we don't have to >watch those smarmy attack ads. > > Good point. >Bush tends not to lie, but he does allow people around >him to distort his opponents' record and slander their >character. I believe Bush's weakness is not his own >integrity but that of the people around him. The only >people fired are those who criticize his policies, >while those who deliberately engage in unethical >campaigning are rewarded. If Bush were not in a >bubble, if he were not prone to groupthink, he'd be a >decent guy. If Kerry wins, we can only hope that he >keeps a wide enough circle of advisors that he doesn't >lock out good ideas and perpetuate bad ones. > > > >>>Most humorous of all, he lied about his goose hunt! >>> >>> >(He said, 'We all got geese' but there were only three >geese for four men.What a weird guy.)<< > >--There's no reason for him to lie about that, he was >probably not paying attention to the guy who didn't >get a goose. I think if you're honest you'll find >similar errors by Bush. When Bush said he'd worked >with Congress to create the department of homeland >security, he forgot to mention he'd opposed it >originally. Does that compare with a missing goose? > >The contrast principle is often used by marketing >consultants who advise political campaigns. Bush is >the "man of Christian integrity" while Kerry is the >"flip-flopper". That's branding, it's not reality, and >without the contrast, whichever candidate wins is >going to have to be judged on his results, not his >ability to slander the other guy. > >Incidentally, I've seen a huge number of email rumors >about both candidates that were simply false, yet >believed by many. Along with the familiar Dan Quayle >quotes falsely attributed to Bush or Kerry, there was >the accusation that Kerry would ban the Bible, that >Bush used the wrong Bible verse (that one also >attributed to Kerry), that terrorists wanted Bush or >Kerry (who polled the terrorists??) and a mudslide of >out-of-context statements by both. I'll be SO glad >when this is over and we can get on with judging >leaders by their results rather than by their ability >to slander their opponent in attack ads. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. >www.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00012.html >> << File: ATT00013.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 2 14:40:30 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:40:30 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Games and testosterone Message-ID: <01C4C0A6.D98AE880.shovland@mindspring.com> Personally, I'm up for waging a civil war of words for as long as it takes :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Nov 2 19:26:22 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:26:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction In-Reply-To: <200411021901.iA2J1t029580@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041102192622.43895.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> >>Well, he said he committed atrocities, and he didn't.<< --You think someone would say he committed war crimes when he didn't? If you believe that, you MUST think he's psychopathic. I tend to think he did commit what he considered (and probably what the Geneva Convention considers) war crimes. >>He said he threw the medals, and he didn't throw his.<< --Politicians often retell stories in a way that embellishes. Reagan did it constatntly. Bush does it. Kerry did throw medals and ribbons, and simplified the story in retelling it. How does Bush tell the story of 911? It probably doesn't include his reading My Pet Goat when he could have been on the phone or on the plane (don't blame Michael Moore for the My Pet Goat thing, it was file footage from the day the towers were hit). I wouldn't equate Kerry's war medal story (which was based solidly in truth, with minor embellishment) with Cheney's repeated allegations of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, entirely without evidence. Or Bush getting photo-ops with programs whose funding he went on to cut. That's a little more cynical than saying medals when you mean ribbons. >>He almost certainly had a dishonorable discharge, but that has been hushed up.<< --I think that whole questioning of Kerry's war record was a GOP tactic to counter questions about Bush's alleged "AWOL" period. I think in both cases the accusations are overstated, and in some cases, purely false. >>But what bothers me is the other issues. He used fear, undertainty, and doubt to get votes.<< --Hmm... who else uses fear, uncertainty and doubt to get votes? Which party has been telling people the Bible will be banned if they don't vote for Bush, or that the country will be attacked and respond with weakness if it votes Kerry? Which party keeps insinuating that terrorists want Kerry? Which party uses knee-jerk fear of the UN to avoid any possibility of compromise in gaining allies? Who slandered McCain during the primaries? Didn't Bush use fear of "big government" against Al Gore and then go on to rack up a huge deficit? Who sets the standard between fear-mongering and pointing out serious problems that need to be dealt with? Is it automatically "their guy" who is in the wrong, when both are using similar campaign strategy? I can understand saying they're BOTH wrong, that the two-party system is inherently corrupting. That I can agree with... but picking one side and saying "They use fear" just seems disingenuous or naive. >>I long for a leader who will use vision, inspiration, and commitment.<< --Me too. But the primary process would eliminate that person, long before the public had a chance to vote for her. You really have to be an actor to make it, and that's why we elect people who believe their own press and reject criticism from outside their circle of insiders. They are the only ones who can believe the act is real. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 3 03:23:39 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:23:39 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Zogby's numbers Message-ID: <01C4C111.75E0D450.shovland@mindspring.com> 2004 Presidential Election Electoral Votes: Bush 213 Kerry 311 Too Close To Call Nevada (5) Too Close To Call Colorado (9) From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 3 18:59:46 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:59:46 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wakeup call for progressives Message-ID: <01C4C194.3C251400.shovland@mindspring.com> We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats as the alternative to the Republicans. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Nov 3 20:09:41 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:09:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction In-Reply-To: <200411031900.iA3J0x000763@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041103200941.93779.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com> >>We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats as the alternative to the Republicans.<< --If you want a third party to succeed, you'll need someone young, wise and charismatic. I'm not sure someone like that can be found who wouldn't be torn apart in the primaries. It takes a lot of money to win, and only the Democrats have the means to compete with Republicans in the media. I'm pretty sure there will have to be a Democrat in 08 before an independent party can get into the debates and act as a balance. As long as war and security issues take precedence over alternative fuels and new ideas for domestic policy, Greens don't have much chance on the Federal level. But if Bush's approval rating sinks low enough in his second term (I think without Kerry to draw fire, Bush will have trouble justifying the results of his policies) there may be room for an independent candidate to get enough of the vote to start competing with the two major parties. But if someone like McCain ran in 08, he'd probably have an easy win. Hopefully that would come with a shift in the GOP to marginalize "culture war" Republicans and favor traditional economic conservatives. Either way, any real change in American culture is going to have to be done without government help. We can no longer expect someone decent to get into office and fix everything, so we'll have to focus energy on local elections and grassroots change. If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana, see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the country against the fragmenting influence of the "culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If that means Alabama banning abortion and women streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the freedom to do what they want. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 3 21:24:35 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:24:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Message-ID: <01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com> I think the folly of Bush's policy in Iraq will become apparent quite soon, with Fallujah being the tar baby. Lynn may know the numbers better, but modern armies have a lot of support troops. Even with outsourcing of some functions, the combat troops in Iraq may be somewhere around 75,000. 40,000 are being committed to the battle of Fallujah that will begin shortly, leaving every other part of Iraq more vulnerable to enemy attack. The troops marshalled in Baghdad must be a tempting target to the other side. There may be a battle in Baghdad even before they try to go to Fallujah. Emphasize "try to go to Fallujah." The odds are they will be attacked while going there, and every supply column during the battle will also be subject to attack. In urban warfare, every bomb you drop creates more hiding places for the defenders. The attacking solders have to stand up and run toward an enemy who is mostly concealed in piles of rubble. The terrain heavily favors the defenders, even if they are outnumbered. Nothing has really changed since Stalingrad. I think the battle may still be raging on inauguration day. We are also on the way to a fiscal shipwreck. The combination of tax cuts and deficits, which may be too esoteric for the mind of the average citizen, is a real problem. The Euro may well emerge as the world's reserve currency. I see no reason to assume that Bush will lead the way on energy, so that will get worse. People now see it every time they fill up on gas or pay their utility bill. Eventually we will see it in the cost of everything as old inventories produced with lower-cost energy are used up. If Roe vs. Wade is repealed, then the lower- and middle- class women who voted for Bush because of his stand on abortion will be the ones who will die from back-alley abortions. Many other middle- and lower-class voters who voted for Bush on values, but against their own economic interests, will get sick and die for lack of national health care, their private benefits having expired. Eventually the pain may get bad enough to wake some people up. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:10 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction >>We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats as the alternative to the Republicans.<< --If you want a third party to succeed, you'll need someone young, wise and charismatic. I'm not sure someone like that can be found who wouldn't be torn apart in the primaries. It takes a lot of money to win, and only the Democrats have the means to compete with Republicans in the media. I'm pretty sure there will have to be a Democrat in 08 before an independent party can get into the debates and act as a balance. As long as war and security issues take precedence over alternative fuels and new ideas for domestic policy, Greens don't have much chance on the Federal level. But if Bush's approval rating sinks low enough in his second term (I think without Kerry to draw fire, Bush will have trouble justifying the results of his policies) there may be room for an independent candidate to get enough of the vote to start competing with the two major parties. But if someone like McCain ran in 08, he'd probably have an easy win. Hopefully that would come with a shift in the GOP to marginalize "culture war" Republicans and favor traditional economic conservatives. Either way, any real change in American culture is going to have to be done without government help. We can no longer expect someone decent to get into office and fix everything, so we'll have to focus energy on local elections and grassroots change. If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana, see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the country against the fragmenting influence of the "culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If that means Alabama banning abortion and women streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the freedom to do what they want. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Nov 3 23:15:09 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:15:09 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction References: <20041103200941.93779.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <025c01c4c1fa$f7f99410$6a49bb3f@S0027397558> > If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights > agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their > ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal > states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana, > see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the > country against the fragmenting influence of the > "culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If > that means Alabama banning abortion and women > streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men > fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the > freedom to do what they want. Could be that now is the time for America to decentralize into two or more regions and draw the map according to the past electoral vote. Then both regions could try out their agendas such as criminalizing gay marriage, marijuana and abortion vs. those taking the reverse positions and see if that might work. The only other solution is that Republicans and Democrats learn to respect each others point of view and continue battling one side against the other. A war of words is much saner than one of bullets. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 4 00:13:09 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:13:09 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Message-ID: <01C4C1C0.0321B9C0.shovland@mindspring.com> I don't think they are that strong yet, but I see some potential fault lines that could change the political scene in spite of out-moded party designations. Fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party have big reasons to be very unhappy, and might easily make common cause with fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle. Before the election some pundit was anticipating warfare within the Republican Party basically on the issue of religiously-inspired social conservatism versus the more secular mainstream Republicans. Kind of like the split between secular and fundamentalist Moslems. How appropriate :-) If the war becomes the disaster I predict then that will cause problems. If they institute conscription in order to "try harder" in Iraq that will radicalize a lot of people. If they bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran and the Iranians then attack with their army that will be a problem. Security Moms may change their tune with their pregnant teenage daughters can't get legal abortions. If they pass the flat tax then the disparity in incomes, demonstrated by conspicuous consumption, will exacerbate class tensions. More "middle class" Americans will be realizing that they have lower class incomes. More people will know of someone who has gone bankrupt because of medical bills. As more jobs are sent overseas, more people will become responsive to the notion of economic patriotism. It's not over. It's just starting. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:15 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Cc: Michael Christopher Lockhart Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction > If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights > agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their > ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal > states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana, > see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the > country against the fragmenting influence of the > "culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If > that means Alabama banning abortion and women > streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men > fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the > freedom to do what they want. Could be that now is the time for America to decentralize into two or more regions and draw the map according to the past electoral vote. Then both regions could try out their agendas such as criminalizing gay marriage, marijuana and abortion vs. those taking the reverse positions and see if that might work. The only other solution is that Republicans and Democrats learn to respect each others point of view and continue battling one side against the other. A war of words is much saner than one of bullets. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 4 03:46:56 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:46:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] from Howl Message-ID: <01C4C1DD.E0FAEA10.shovland@mindspring.com> I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to thestarry dynamo in the machinery of night, who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water fiats 'doating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz, who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated, who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy among the scholars of war, who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes on the windows of the skull, who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear, burning their money in wastebaskets and listening to the Terror through the wall, who got busted in their pubic beards returning through Laredo with a belt of marijuana for New York, who ate fire in paint hotels or drank turpentine in Paradise Alley, death, or purgatoried their torsos night after night, with dreams, with drugs, with waking nightmares, alcohol and cock and endless balls, incomparable blind streets of shuddering cloud and lightning in the mind leaping toward poles of Canada & Paterson, illuminating all the motionless world of Time between, Peyote solidities of halls, backyard green tree cemetery dawns, wine drunkenness over the rooftops, storefront boroughs of teahead joyride neon blinking traffic light, sun and moon and tree vibrations in the roaring winter dusks of Brooklyn, ashcan rantings and kind king light of mind, who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down shuddering mouth-wracked and battered bleak of brain all drained of brilliance in the drear light of Zoo, who sank all night in submarine light of Bickford's floated out and sat through the stale beer afternoon in desolate Fugazzi's, I listening to the crack of doom on the hydrogen jukebox, who talked continuously seventy hours from park to pad to bar to Bellevue to museum to the Brooklyn Bridge, a lost battalion of platonic conversationalists From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Nov 4 03:53:57 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:53:57 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction In-Reply-To: <01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4189A7D5.8080206@solution-consulting.com> Steve, In the modern army, less than half the troops are combat troops, the majority are support. Battle has become unbelievably technical, or at least unbelievable to a fossil like me. Remember the people who got lost and got captured on the road to Bagdad? They were support trooops. They couldn't fight because their weapons were dirty and the M-16 is not tolerant of the fine sand in Iraq. The standard issue oil was a dirt magnet. The support troops didn't train for combat, so they were cooked with they faced it. Steve Hovland wrote: >I think the folly of Bush's policy in Iraq will >become apparent quite soon, with Fallujah >being the tar baby. > We will see. > >Lynn may know the numbers better, but >modern armies have a lot of support troops. >Even with outsourcing of some functions, >the combat troops in Iraq may be somewhere >around 75,000. > >40,000 are being committed to the battle >of Fallujah that will begin shortly, leaving >every other part of Iraq more vulnerable to >enemy attack. > > The test is whether the Iraqi troops will fight. Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world, but the ability to fight was lamentable, probably because Saddam was basically a terrorist in charge of a country, and you cannot terrorize people into being brave. Now the Iraqis have an equity share in the outcome. They don't want to go back to being terrorized, which is what the terrorists in Fallujah and elsewhere want. The morale, I am told, is fairly high, so it may be that the new, improved Iraqi army will fight. We shall soon see. >The troops marshalled in Baghdad must be >a tempting target to the other side. There >may be a battle in Baghdad even before they >try to go to Fallujah. > >Emphasize "try to go to Fallujah." The odds >are they will be attacked while going there, >and every supply column during the battle will >also be subject to attack. > >In urban warfare, every bomb you drop creates more >hiding places for the defenders. The attacking >solders have to stand up and run toward an >enemy who is mostly concealed in piles of >rubble. The terrain heavily favors the defenders, >even if they are outnumbered. Nothing has >really changed since Stalingrad. > > Well, I would disagree a bit here. Modern warfare is much kinder to the civilian population because the ordinance is more accurate, and that also makes the defender's lives harder and shorter. But your point is good, this is a very hard fight, with lots of dangers. >I think the battle may still be raging on inauguration day. > > I would doubt that. The problem with Fallujah was that the pentagon and Rumsfield lost their nerve when our marines were poised for a kill. The LBJ scenario. Don't let the battlefield commanders make decisions. I disapprove. >We are also on the way to a fiscal shipwreck. >The combination of tax cuts and deficits, which may >be too esoteric for the mind of the average citizen, >is a real problem. The Euro may well emerge >as the world's reserve currency. > > Already doing it. People in the futures markets were saying there would never be parity, and now look which currency is stronger! >I see no reason to assume that Bush will lead >the way on energy, so that will get worse. People >now see it every time they fill up on gas or pay >their utility bill. Eventually we will see it in the >cost of everything as old inventories produced >with lower-cost energy are used up. > > Our biggest long-term threat, as I see it, and a worthy challenge. I am personally committed to doing some pathfinding and sponsoring to alternative energies. Since I am not a liberal, I will be listened to with more respect - I hope! >If Roe vs. Wade is repealed, then the lower- and >middle- class women who voted for Bush because >of his stand on abortion will be the ones who >will die from back-alley abortions. > > A very unlikely scenario. Roe v. wade will not be repealed, and even if it were, most unlikely, would only turn the abortion decision back to the states. Some states would have it, some would not. Yours would, mine would not. >Many other middle- and lower-class voters >who voted for Bush on values, but against >their own economic interests, will get sick and >die for lack of national health care, their private >benefits having expired. > > Healthcare is a tar baby, but I have spent a lot of time abroad and don't want to live in a Canada style single payor system. We will need some new and creative options. I believe HSAs are a robust solution, since it involves the consumer in point-of-sale decisions. When every consumer has a personal stock in how money is spent, the wiser decisions will be made. Top-down government control will deteriorate our system rapidly. One area Bush is right about is the Ownership Society. >Eventually the pain may get bad enough to >wake some people up. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:10 PM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction > > > > >>>We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats >>> >>> >as the alternative to the Republicans.<< > >--If you want a third party to succeed, you'll need >someone young, wise and charismatic. I'm not sure >someone like that can be found who wouldn't be torn >apart in the primaries. It takes a lot of money to >win, and only the Democrats have the means to compete >with Republicans in the media. I'm pretty sure there >will have to be a Democrat in 08 before an independent >party can get into the debates and act as a balance. >As long as war and security issues take precedence >over alternative fuels and new ideas for domestic >policy, Greens don't have much chance on the Federal >level. But if Bush's approval rating sinks low enough >in his second term (I think without Kerry to draw >fire, Bush will have trouble justifying the results of >his policies) there may be room for an independent >candidate to get enough of the vote to start competing >with the two major parties. But if someone like McCain >ran in 08, he'd probably have an easy win. Hopefully >that would come with a shift in the GOP to marginalize >"culture war" Republicans and favor traditional >economic conservatives. Either way, any real change in >American culture is going to have to be done without >government help. We can no longer expect someone >decent to get into office and fix everything, so we'll >have to focus energy on local elections and grassroots >change. > >If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights >agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their >ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal >states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana, >see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the >country against the fragmenting influence of the >"culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If >that means Alabama banning abortion and women >streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men >fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the >freedom to do what they want. > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. >www.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Nov 4 03:55:16 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:55:16 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry haiku In-Reply-To: <20041103200941.93779.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041103200941.93779.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4189A824.7020403@solution-consulting.com> From Opinion Journal today: Served in Vietnam: A grateful nation thanks him And says, "That's enough" From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 4 04:01:49 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:01:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Jung and the Nazis Message-ID: <01C4C1DF.F605A790.shovland@mindspring.com> Mark Medweth Department of Psychology Simon Fraser University It is difficult to deny that Carl Jung's theories are largely overlooked in comparison to Freudian and other schools of thought. There are numerous possible reasons for such an occurrence but the most intriguing of all are accusations of anti-Semitism and National-Socialist support in the 1930's. Having been accused of such, and facing the associated stigma of scandalous behavior and beliefs may very well be the reason behind Jung's unpopularity. His relationship with Sigmund Freud, his written work on Jewry, his fascination with the Nazi movement, and the allegation of Nazi sympathy in general, seem damaging to say the least. An examination of Jung and his work during the period leading up to and through World War Two sheds greater light on such long-standing accusations and goes a long way toward dispelling these claims. Nazi Sympathizer Like many others, Jung initially welcomed the focus of unity that swept across the German land as the National-Socialist "revolution" took hold (Stern, 1976). Though as time went on and Jung grew increasingly cautious in his views, accusations of being a "Nazi sympathizer" emerged; accusations which, in some respects, seems justified as we will see. In 1928, Carl Gustav Jung became a member of the International General Medical Society for Psychotherapy (Gallard, 1994). This society, which began two years earlier, was founded on the desire to develop a psychotherapeutic science with a spiritual, rather than widely popular material, emphasis. In the same year that Jung joined the society, so too did Matthias Heinrich Goring, the cousin of the now infamous Marshall, Herman Goring. Jung was elected vice president in 1930 and was asked to assume the presidency in 1933 due to the deteriorating political climate. It was believed that Jung, being a Swiss National and thus neutral, would be in a better political position to handle the role (Gallard, 1994). Later that year, there was a reorganization of Zentralblatt fur Psychotherapie, the society's publication journal. The decision was made that two separate but aligned editions of the journal would be published: an international edition edited by Jung, and a German edition under the control of Goring for the purpose of ensuring that all material conformed to Nazi ideology (Sherry, 1986). It was soon after recommended by Goring that every practicing psychotherapist adopt Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf as a basic reference. This written appeal was slated for publication in the German edition of the journal but somehow ended up in the international journal above Carl Jung's signature (Gallard, 1994; Sherry, 1986). Though the society's headquarters were located in Switzerland and he was certainly far removed from this "Nazi deception," it was a commonly held belief that Jung accepted the presidency of a Nazified German organization; thus he must be a sympathizer. His decision to accept such a position was heavily criticized by many. Perhaps the fact that Jung fantasized of national glory, was purportedly not immune to the lure of power, and felt neglected and misunderstood, played a role in his acceptance of the presidency for a society in which some members were almost certainly familiar with Mein Kampf and Nazi ideology (Stern, 1976). Jung, however, offered the excuse that he simply followed the wishes of his German (and Jewish) colleagues; his true aim was to save psychotherapy which could easily disappear, as he had put it, with a single stroke of the pen by higher authorities (Gallard, 1994). He did initially doubt his decision from a moral standpoint but the desire to preserve the interests of science made the risky effort worthwhile (Gallard, 1994). In the end, Jung's professional reputation was certainly affected by these events, though he seemed to have a blind spot to these ramifications. However, this blind spot, some have suggested, also allowed Jung to see and clarify elements which went previously undetected, out of which his fascination with events in Germany grew. Jung's Fascination Part of Jung's fascination with the Nazi movement was due to his belief that his archetype theory was best able to explain the "rumblings" of pre-World War Two Germany. He saw the Nazi movement as an enormous eruption of the collective unconscious he had previously postulated as far back as 1918 (Stern, 1976). Jung believed the archetype "Wotan," which represented the German state of mind in the 1930's, was the return of the collective repressed, and constituted a great event in light of the belief that the Germans were experiencing a reintegration of archaic elements into their psyche (elements that had been, over past centuries, suppressed by various cultural movements). By 1936, Jung's excitement waned as he recognized (and clearly stated) the demonic aspect of Hitler and the Nazi movement (Gallard, 1994). However, according to his theories, there is an inherent duality of the archetype, leading Jung to the expectation that the evil side would turn into its opposite, allowing these forces to humanize. Thus, Jung believed a new and positive cultural form would emerge and remained hopeful (Gallard, 1994). Such hopefulness was frowned upon by those opposed to the Nazis but, as we will later see, his medical profession may have accounted for his unpopular views. Despite these events there were other damaging accusations. His relationship with Freud, it has been suggested, represented a darker side to Jung's Jewish attitudes. Jung and Freud The anti-Semitism charges in the 1930's were dismissed as having been started by a vengeful Sigmund Freud in order to discredit Jung's work (Sherry, 1986). These accusations, however, were continually repeated by Freudians and stuck with Jung wherever he went. It is true that a superficial glance of Jung's attitude concerning Freudian psychology seems frighteningly similar to Nazi phraseology. Jung referred to the Freudian school of thought as subversive, depreciatory, undermining, obscene, and smutty-minded, while the Nazis described Jews as alien, subversive, lascivious, and parasitic (Stern, 1976). His statements may have sounded anti-Semitic but Stern (1976) proposes they were more correctly attributable to the resentment that periodically overcame him; he may have overshot his initial target, which was undoubtedly Sigmund Freud (Stern, 1976). These anti-Semitic accusations by Freudians, Jung warned, were a confirmation that psychoanalysis was a Jewish psychology (Sherry, 1986). It seemed that no one, without facing charges of anti-Semitism, could criticize Freud's work. Did Jung's resentment of Freud arise because he was anti-Semitic? It is more likely that this tension between the two grew out of their necessary separation as coworkers and colleagues. It is true that Jung had a conflictual relationship with a prominent Jew - Sigmund Freud. It was Freud, however, who first emphasized cultural and religious differences between the two (Gallard, 1994). What originally brought Freud and Jung together was their common belief that the unconscious was a reality. In the end, however, the separation of the two collaborators was necessary because of different fundamental views that could not be reconciled: Freud concentrated on the physical and biological background of the unconscious, while Jung conceptualized the psyche in terms of polarities (Franz, 1975). Jung believed that both the biological as well as the spiritual aspects belonged to the very nature of the unconscious. In later years, Jung explained the separation as a typological difference in temperament (Franz, 1975). Freud's work corresponded to an extroverted approach to science while Jung's methods were more of an introverted concern. It is clear that differences between the two were at a fundamental, structural level rather than racially or religiously based. In a 1929 text, Jung contrasted their two theories and no mention was ever made of Freud's religious origins (Gallard, 1994). In 1939, Jung spoke about Freud after the eminent thinkers death and again made no mention of religious or racial differences, though the time in history would have been an opportune moment to do so, considering the rise of the Nazi movement and the general feeling of dislike toward the Jews in Germany. In Jung's own words, "I am absolutely not an opponent of the Jews, even though I am an opponent of Freud's. I criticize him because of his materialistic and intellectualistic - last but not least - irreligious attitude and not because he is Jewish" (Jung, 1934b, as cited in Gallard, 1994, p. 218). To this day, the two schools of thought are opposed to each other. This opposition probably resides in the typological differences alluded to by Jung. The Freudian outlook is much closer to the extroverted orientation of our Natural Sciences while Jung's approach is of a more subjective nature (Franz, 1975). Whether one is satisfied that he was an opponent of Freud because of professional and not religious differences, Jung was also accused of writing, throughout the 1930's, what some consider to be anti-Semitic statements about Jews in general. Jung and Jewish Psychology In the very first issue of the Zentralblatt fur Psychotherapie, with Jung as editor, he wrote that the universal aspect of the psyche should not be allowed to hide the particular characteristics that are evident from belonging to any given cultural or religious group. In fact, Jung touched on this topic - differences between Jewish and Germanic psychology - on many occasions which highlights his "concern to give voice to those viewpoints which report on the 'imponderable differences' between men, and by exposing them, to reach a synthesis" (Gallard, 1994, p. 209). Such may be the case, but Jung's emphasis on religious and cultural differences of the psyche was a serious breach of ethics in consideration of the time in history (Gallard, 1994). To accentuate such differences between Jewish psychology and other schools of thought fed into Nazi propaganda. Furthermore, Jung continually failed to explain exactly what he meant by his oftentimes paradoxical writing, thus leaving him open to criticism. In light of this, the accusations of ant-Semitism seem hardly surprising. As an example of paradoxical writing, Jung, at one point, likened Jewish psychology to Chinese psychology. At that time in history however, the Chinese culture was not well known; they were a remote people, not valued by others, and were of an entirely different cultural realm (Gallard, 1994). It is not surprising that such an idea could be taken as a further attack on Jews. Yet unknown to most, Jung had spent years immersing himself in Far Eastern culture and found somewhat of an authentication of his ideas. His great respect for the Chinese culture implies that he was complimenting Jewish psychology. In fact, at one point, he stated that Jews were more vastly conscious than the barbaric Germanic people and had a higher degree of civilization and adaptability (McGuire, & Hull, 1977). In relation to such differences that Jung so eagerly emphasized, it was his belief that the cultural specificities were the universal heritage of humankind which can be found in all people (Gallard, 1994). However, an effort must first be made to recognize these particulars which usually show themselves as differences. This notion would explain why Jung was so intent on highlighting differences between Jewish and Germanic psychology: he simply wished to initiate discussion on, what many considered, sensitive matters (Sherry, 1986). Though some would later suggest that through addressing Jewish psychological differences, he was really unconsciously addressing Freud, it is clear that he failed to understand the possibility of misinterpretation and the dangerous misuse of what he wrote. If Jung could be accused of anything, it would be his poor timing in light of the events unfolding around him in pre-war Europe. Having considered these accusations - of being a Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite - it is worth considering often overlooked public statements expressed by Jung as the war approached. Jung's Own Words As early as 1918, Jung knew something unfavorable was arising within Germany. His words of the "blond beast stirring in its subterranean prison...threatening us with an outbreak that will have devastating consequences" (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947) serve as an early warning of what was to come. Just ten years later, he wrote on how each person is unconsciously worse when acting within a crowd rather than individually. Jung warned the world that the larger an organization becomes, the more the people are prone to immorality and blind ignorance (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). In 1933, in a lecture given in Cologne, Germany (at the same period in history when others accused him of Nazi-sympathy), Jung leveled a full blown warning about people as a collective suffocating the individual, leaving those in the crowd anonymous, irresponsible, and dangerous. Jung implied that Hitler (and Nazism) was the inevitable cause of such collectivenes. Four years later, in 1937, Jung spoke at Yale University in the United States, relaying his belief that the movement seen in Germany was explained by a fear of neighboring countries supposedly possessed by devilish leaders. In stating that no one can recognize their own unconscious underpinnings, the possibility that Germany was projecting their own condition upon their International neighbors was evident (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). This fear leads to the nationalistic duty to have the biggest guns and the strongest army. In 1940, most of these words were published in German but were quickly suppressed. As a result of Jung's views about Germany and particularly Adolf Hitler, he ended up on the Nazi "blacklist" (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). When France was later invaded, the Gestapo destroyed Jung's French translations as well. In no uncertain terms, Jung's writings and lectures served as a warning for the conflict to come. As well, Jung's own words opposed the accusations of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism. It would seem then, in light of the above, that the answer to the question of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism is fairly clear. Conlusions Was Jung a Nazi sympathizer and ant-Semite? The answer is most likely no. Jay Sherry (1986) suggests that Jung's bitterness toward Freud as well as his fascination with his archetype theory coming to life caused him to miss, on a feeling level, what was unfolding in a historical sense. Jung clearly showed the importance he placed on mythical symbols and transformations, and his choice to describe events psychically (in mythological terms) rather than from a psychiatric or sociological standpoint may have obscured his view of his predicament (Gallard, 1994). As well, his initial enthusiasm about the Nazi movement was likely a result of the polarity of his theory. If each archetype contains the seeds of good as well as evil, it is difficult at the start to judge whether a positive or negative resolution will take place. His medical background may have counseled him to a "wait and see" attitude in light of this polarity (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). Jung stated that, "a doctor needs a certain optimism in order to save everything that can possibly be saved, even when things look very black. One simply cannot afford to let oneself be too much impressed by the apparent or real hopelessness of a situation, even though this should entail exposing oneself to a certain danger" (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). This attitude leaves no room for initial negative judgments, but leads one to proceed cautiously and optimistically. This would account for the numerous accusations that Jung possessed an initial give-them-a-chance attitude toward Hitler and the Nazi movement (Sherry, 1986). One should also keep in mind that, from Jung's standpoint, pre-National-Socialist Germany was one of the most differentiated cultural countries in the world, and represented the intellectual background to which the Swiss were tied through language and friendship (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). Jung admits that, as Hitler seized power, he consoled himself in the fact that Germany was indeed a civilized European nation with a strong sense of discipline and morality. Thus, to Jung (as well as countless others), the ultimate outcome seemed confusing and uncertain (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1957). Finally, Marie Louise von Franz (1975) knew Jung up to his death and never perceived the slightest trace, conscious or unconscious, of National-Socialist or anti-Semitic support. To the contrary, she states that Jung frequently spoke against Hitler and the Nazis in distinctly unambiguous terms. The fact that some of his most devoted pupils - Erich Neumann, Gerhard Adler, James Kirsch, and Aniela Jaffe - were Jewish and that racism was quite contrary to Jung's well known aspirations of universality suggests the accusations are somewhat misguided (Stern, 1976). As a result of these insights, it is best to infer that Jung's misplaced optimism and the mistake of talking too much proves the truism that "a great scientist is not necessarily a good politician" (Franz, 1975, p. 63). References Franz, M. L. von. (1975). C. G. Jung: His myth in our time. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Gallard, M. (1994). Jung's attitude during the second World War in the light of the historical and professional context. Journal of analytical psychology, 39, 203-232. McGuire, W., and Hull, R. F. C. (1977). C. G. Jung speaking. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Sherry, J. (1986). Jung, the Jews, and Hitler. Spring: an annual of archetypal psychology and Jungian thought. Texas: Spring Publications. Stern, P. J. (1976). C. G. Jung: The haunted prophet. New York: George Braziller. Welsh E., Hannah, B., and Briner, M. (Trans.) (1947). Essays on contemporary events. London: Kegan Paul. From kendulf at shaw.ca Thu Nov 4 04:25:26 2004 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:25:26 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction References: <01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com> <4189A7D5.8080206@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <00b601c4c226$4f168c00$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Lynn, The M-16 was trouble in Vietnam, and appears to be so again. Issue Klatchnikows! IN WW II the German military was reduced to begging industry to copy the Russian T-34 tank - and forget fancy tanks. The Panther was the reply! The Russians sure loved the one's they captured and re-used! My father in law, a long-serving Wehrmacht officer who survived, had a professional's admiration for Russian weaponry. It worked when the German failed! Russia's "primitive" Moisin sniper rifle with a - superlative! - little scope was used also by German snipers! Do your support troops fail to get a thorough infantry training? Amazing! Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Steve, In the modern army, less than half the troops are combat troops, the majority are support. Battle has become unbelievably technical, or at least unbelievable to a fossil like me. Remember the people who got lost and got captured on the road to Bagdad? They were support trooops. They couldn't fight because their weapons were dirty and the M-16 is not tolerant of the fine sand in Iraq. The standard issue oil was a dirt magnet. The support troops didn't train for combat, so they were cooked with they faced it. Steve Hovland wrote: I think the folly of Bush's policy in Iraq will become apparent quite soon, with Fallujah being the tar baby.We will see. Lynn may know the numbers better, but modern armies have a lot of support troops. Even with outsourcing of some functions, the combat troops in Iraq may be somewhere around 75,000. 40,000 are being committed to the battle of Fallujah that will begin shortly, leaving every other part of Iraq more vulnerable to enemy attack. The test is whether the Iraqi troops will fight. Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world, but the ability to fight was lamentable, probably because Saddam was basically a terrorist in charge of a country, and you cannot terrorize people into being brave. Now the Iraqis have an equity share in the outcome. They don't want to go back to being terrorized, which is what the terrorists in Fallujah and elsewhere want. The morale, I am told, is fairly high, so it may be that the new, improved Iraqi army will fight. We shall soon see. The troops marshalled in Baghdad must be a tempting target to the other side. There may be a battle in Baghdad even before they try to go to Fallujah. Emphasize "try to go to Fallujah." The odds are they will be attacked while going there, and every supply column during the battle will also be subject to attack. In urban warfare, every bomb you drop creates more hiding places for the defenders. The attacking solders have to stand up and run toward an enemy who is mostly concealed in piles of rubble. The terrain heavily favors the defenders, even if they are outnumbered. Nothing has really changed since Stalingrad. Well, I would disagree a bit here. Modern warfare is much kinder to the civilian population because the ordinance is more accurate, and that also makes the defender's lives harder and shorter. But your point is good, this is a very hard fight, with lots of dangers. I think the battle may still be raging on inauguration day. I would doubt that. The problem with Fallujah was that the pentagon and Rumsfield lost their nerve when our marines were poised for a kill. The LBJ scenario. Don't let the battlefield commanders make decisions. I disapprove. We are also on the way to a fiscal shipwreck. The combination of tax cuts and deficits, which may be too esoteric for the mind of the average citizen, is a real problem. The Euro may well emerge as the world's reserve currency. Already doing it. People in the futures markets were saying there would never be parity, and now look which currency is stronger! I see no reason to assume that Bush will lead the way on energy, so that will get worse. People now see it every time they fill up on gas or pay their utility bill. Eventually we will see it in the cost of everything as old inventories produced with lower-cost energy are used up. Our biggest long-term threat, as I see it, and a worthy challenge. I am personally committed to doing some pathfinding and sponsoring to alternative energies. Since I am not a liberal, I will be listened to with more respect - I hope! If Roe vs. Wade is repealed, then the lower- and middle- class women who voted for Bush because of his stand on abortion will be the ones who will die from back-alley abortions. A very unlikely scenario. Roe v. wade will not be repealed, and even if it were, most unlikely, would only turn the abortion decision back to the states. Some states would have it, some would not. Yours would, mine would not. Many other middle- and lower-class voters who voted for Bush on values, but against their own economic interests, will get sick and die for lack of national health care, their private benefits having expired. Healthcare is a tar baby, but I have spent a lot of time abroad and don't want to live in a Canada style single payor system. We will need some new and creative options. I believe HSAs are a robust solution, since it involves the consumer in point-of-sale decisions. When every consumer has a personal stock in how money is spent, the wiser decisions will be made. Top-down government control will deteriorate our system rapidly. One area Bush is right about is the Ownership Society. Eventually the pain may get bad enough to wake some people up. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:10 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats as the alternative to the Republicans.<< --If you want a third party to succeed, you'll need someone young, wise and charismatic. I'm not sure someone like that can be found who wouldn't be torn apart in the primaries. It takes a lot of money to win, and only the Democrats have the means to compete with Republicans in the media. I'm pretty sure there will have to be a Democrat in 08 before an independent party can get into the debates and act as a balance. As long as war and security issues take precedence over alternative fuels and new ideas for domestic policy, Greens don't have much chance on the Federal level. But if Bush's approval rating sinks low enough in his second term (I think without Kerry to draw fire, Bush will have trouble justifying the results of his policies) there may be room for an independent candidate to get enough of the vote to start competing with the two major parties. But if someone like McCain ran in 08, he'd probably have an easy win. Hopefully that would come with a shift in the GOP to marginalize "culture war" Republicans and favor traditional economic conservatives. Either way, any real change in American culture is going to have to be done without government help. We can no longer expect someone decent to get into office and fix everything, so we'll have to focus energy on local elections and grassroots change. If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana, see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the country against the fragmenting influence of the "culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If that means Alabama banning abortion and women streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the freedom to do what they want. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 4 05:09:19 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:09:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Message-ID: <01C4C1E9.632BC490.shovland@mindspring.com> Thank you. So if we have 130,000 troops in Iraq perhaps 60,000 or less are combat troops and 40,000 have been collected for the battle for Fallujah, which would mean perhaps 20,000 combat troops versus 5-8,000 insurgents. The traditional ratio for certain victory is 5:1, so our people may be going in short-handed. It sounds to me like the rest of the country will pretty much belong to the bandits. I have heard that the high tech that was supposed to give the commanders of the invasion a good view of the battlefield actually failed, and that when our tanks found their tanks it was strictly by accident. We have been told that our superior urban infantry tactics will make a difference. We shall see. The other side has had months to prepare their positions, and they are professionals from Saddams old army. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:54 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Steve, In the modern army, less than half the troops are combat troops, the majority are support. Battle has become unbelievably technical, or at least unbelievable to a fossil like me. Remember the people who got lost and got captured on the road to Bagdad? They were support trooops. They couldn't fight because their weapons were dirty and the M-16 is not tolerant of the fine sand in Iraq. The standard issue oil was a dirt magnet. The support troops didn't train for combat, so they were cooked with they faced it. Steve Hovland wrote: >I think the folly of Bush's policy in Iraq will >become apparent quite soon, with Fallujah >being the tar baby. > We will see. > >Lynn may know the numbers better, but >modern armies have a lot of support troops. >Even with outsourcing of some functions, >the combat troops in Iraq may be somewhere >around 75,000. > >40,000 are being committed to the battle >of Fallujah that will begin shortly, leaving >every other part of Iraq more vulnerable to >enemy attack. > > The test is whether the Iraqi troops will fight. Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world, but the ability to fight was lamentable, probably because Saddam was basically a terrorist in charge of a country, and you cannot terrorize people into being brave. Now the Iraqis have an equity share in the outcome. They don't want to go back to being terrorized, which is what the terrorists in Fallujah and elsewhere want. The morale, I am told, is fairly high, so it may be that the new, improved Iraqi army will fight. We shall soon see. >The troops marshalled in Baghdad must be >a tempting target to the other side. There >may be a battle in Baghdad even before they >try to go to Fallujah. > >Emphasize "try to go to Fallujah." The odds >are they will be attacked while going there, >and every supply column during the battle will >also be subject to attack. > >In urban warfare, every bomb you drop creates more >hiding places for the defenders. The attacking >solders have to stand up and run toward an >enemy who is mostly concealed in piles of >rubble. The terrain heavily favors the defenders, >even if they are outnumbered. Nothing has >really changed since Stalingrad. > > Well, I would disagree a bit here. Modern warfare is much kinder to the civilian population because the ordinance is more accurate, and that also makes the defender's lives harder and shorter. But your point is good, this is a very hard fight, with lots of dangers. >I think the battle may still be raging on inauguration day. > > I would doubt that. The problem with Fallujah was that the pentagon and Rumsfield lost their nerve when our marines were poised for a kill. The LBJ scenario. Don't let the battlefield commanders make decisions. I disapprove. >We are also on the way to a fiscal shipwreck. >The combination of tax cuts and deficits, which may >be too esoteric for the mind of the average citizen, >is a real problem. The Euro may well emerge >as the world's reserve currency. > > Already doing it. People in the futures markets were saying there would never be parity, and now look which currency is stronger! >I see no reason to assume that Bush will lead >the way on energy, so that will get worse. People >now see it every time they fill up on gas or pay >their utility bill. Eventually we will see it in the >cost of everything as old inventories produced >with lower-cost energy are used up. > > Our biggest long-term threat, as I see it, and a worthy challenge. I am personally committed to doing some pathfinding and sponsoring to alternative energies. Since I am not a liberal, I will be listened to with more respect - I hope! >If Roe vs. Wade is repealed, then the lower- and >middle- class women who voted for Bush because >of his stand on abortion will be the ones who >will die from back-alley abortions. > > A very unlikely scenario. Roe v. wade will not be repealed, and even if it were, most unlikely, would only turn the abortion decision back to the states. Some states would have it, some would not. Yours would, mine would not. >Many other middle- and lower-class voters >who voted for Bush on values, but against >their own economic interests, will get sick and >die for lack of national health care, their private >benefits having expired. > > Healthcare is a tar baby, but I have spent a lot of time abroad and don't want to live in a Canada style single payor system. We will need some new and creative options. I believe HSAs are a robust solution, since it involves the consumer in point-of-sale decisions. When every consumer has a personal stock in how money is spent, the wiser decisions will be made. Top-down government control will deteriorate our system rapidly. One area Bush is right about is the Ownership Society. >Eventually the pain may get bad enough to >wake some people up. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:10 PM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction > > > > >>>We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats >>> >>> >as the alternative to the Republicans.<< > >--If you want a third party to succeed, you'll need >someone young, wise and charismatic. I'm not sure >someone like that can be found who wouldn't be torn >apart in the primaries. It takes a lot of money to >win, and only the Democrats have the means to compete >with Republicans in the media. I'm pretty sure there >will have to be a Democrat in 08 before an independent >party can get into the debates and act as a balance. >As long as war and security issues take precedence >over alternative fuels and new ideas for domestic >policy, Greens don't have much chance on the Federal >level. But if Bush's approval rating sinks low enough >in his second term (I think without Kerry to draw >fire, Bush will have trouble justifying the results of >his policies) there may be room for an independent >candidate to get enough of the vote to start competing >with the two major parties. But if someone like McCain >ran in 08, he'd probably have an easy win. Hopefully >that would come with a shift in the GOP to marginalize >"culture war" Republicans and favor traditional >economic conservatives. Either way, any real change in >American culture is going to have to be done without >government help. We can no longer expect someone >decent to get into office and fix everything, so we'll >have to focus energy on local elections and grassroots >change. > >If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights >agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their >ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal >states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana, >see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the >country against the fragmenting influence of the >"culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If >that means Alabama banning abortion and women >streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men >fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the >freedom to do what they want. > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. >www.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 4 05:18:32 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:18:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Message-ID: <01C4C1EA.AC87DE70.shovland@mindspring.com> On health care, I don't see any need to go to a single payer system, although we do need a national initiative to fill in the gaps- the 45 million uninsured. We also need to take a very hard look at the cost of "health" care, which goes up without end. My premiums have doubled in the last year. Why? I favor a national audit of where the money is going. I feel that monopoly power has something to do with it. We also need to look at the care that is being provided. I have recently read Dean Ornish's latest book on heart disease, and many studies indicate that bypasses and angioplasty's are temporary fixes at best. We need to look into the promiscuous prescribing of a host of medications that are very expensive. Perhaps the government needs to finance neighborhood clinics staffed with Nurse Practitioners to provide basic care to anyone who walks in. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:54 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Steve, In the modern army, less than half the troops are combat troops, the majority are support. Battle has become unbelievably technical, or at least unbelievable to a fossil like me. Remember the people who got lost and got captured on the road to Bagdad? They were support trooops. They couldn't fight because their weapons were dirty and the M-16 is not tolerant of the fine sand in Iraq. The standard issue oil was a dirt magnet. The support troops didn't train for combat, so they were cooked with they faced it. Steve Hovland wrote: >I think the folly of Bush's policy in Iraq will >become apparent quite soon, with Fallujah >being the tar baby. > We will see. > >Lynn may know the numbers better, but >modern armies have a lot of support troops. >Even with outsourcing of some functions, >the combat troops in Iraq may be somewhere >around 75,000. > >40,000 are being committed to the battle >of Fallujah that will begin shortly, leaving >every other part of Iraq more vulnerable to >enemy attack. > > The test is whether the Iraqi troops will fight. Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world, but the ability to fight was lamentable, probably because Saddam was basically a terrorist in charge of a country, and you cannot terrorize people into being brave. Now the Iraqis have an equity share in the outcome. They don't want to go back to being terrorized, which is what the terrorists in Fallujah and elsewhere want. The morale, I am told, is fairly high, so it may be that the new, improved Iraqi army will fight. We shall soon see. >The troops marshalled in Baghdad must be >a tempting target to the other side. There >may be a battle in Baghdad even before they >try to go to Fallujah. > >Emphasize "try to go to Fallujah." The odds >are they will be attacked while going there, >and every supply column during the battle will >also be subject to attack. > >In urban warfare, every bomb you drop creates more >hiding places for the defenders. The attacking >solders have to stand up and run toward an >enemy who is mostly concealed in piles of >rubble. The terrain heavily favors the defenders, >even if they are outnumbered. Nothing has >really changed since Stalingrad. > > Well, I would disagree a bit here. Modern warfare is much kinder to the civilian population because the ordinance is more accurate, and that also makes the defender's lives harder and shorter. But your point is good, this is a very hard fight, with lots of dangers. >I think the battle may still be raging on inauguration day. > > I would doubt that. The problem with Fallujah was that the pentagon and Rumsfield lost their nerve when our marines were poised for a kill. The LBJ scenario. Don't let the battlefield commanders make decisions. I disapprove. >We are also on the way to a fiscal shipwreck. >The combination of tax cuts and deficits, which may >be too esoteric for the mind of the average citizen, >is a real problem. The Euro may well emerge >as the world's reserve currency. > > Already doing it. People in the futures markets were saying there would never be parity, and now look which currency is stronger! >I see no reason to assume that Bush will lead >the way on energy, so that will get worse. People >now see it every time they fill up on gas or pay >their utility bill. Eventually we will see it in the >cost of everything as old inventories produced >with lower-cost energy are used up. > > Our biggest long-term threat, as I see it, and a worthy challenge. I am personally committed to doing some pathfinding and sponsoring to alternative energies. Since I am not a liberal, I will be listened to with more respect - I hope! >If Roe vs. Wade is repealed, then the lower- and >middle- class women who voted for Bush because >of his stand on abortion will be the ones who >will die from back-alley abortions. > > A very unlikely scenario. Roe v. wade will not be repealed, and even if it were, most unlikely, would only turn the abortion decision back to the states. Some states would have it, some would not. Yours would, mine would not. >Many other middle- and lower-class voters >who voted for Bush on values, but against >their own economic interests, will get sick and >die for lack of national health care, their private >benefits having expired. > > Healthcare is a tar baby, but I have spent a lot of time abroad and don't want to live in a Canada style single payor system. We will need some new and creative options. I believe HSAs are a robust solution, since it involves the consumer in point-of-sale decisions. When every consumer has a personal stock in how money is spent, the wiser decisions will be made. Top-down government control will deteriorate our system rapidly. One area Bush is right about is the Ownership Society. >Eventually the pain may get bad enough to >wake some people up. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:10 PM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction > > > > >>>We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats >>> >>> >as the alternative to the Republicans.<< > >--If you want a third party to succeed, you'll need >someone young, wise and charismatic. I'm not sure >someone like that can be found who wouldn't be torn >apart in the primaries. It takes a lot of money to >win, and only the Democrats have the means to compete >with Republicans in the media. I'm pretty sure there >will have to be a Democrat in 08 before an independent >party can get into the debates and act as a balance. >As long as war and security issues take precedence >over alternative fuels and new ideas for domestic >policy, Greens don't have much chance on the Federal >level. But if Bush's approval rating sinks low enough >in his second term (I think without Kerry to draw >fire, Bush will have trouble justifying the results of >his policies) there may be room for an independent >candidate to get enough of the vote to start competing >with the two major parties. But if someone like McCain >ran in 08, he'd probably have an easy win. Hopefully >that would come with a shift in the GOP to marginalize >"culture war" Republicans and favor traditional >economic conservatives. Either way, any real change in >American culture is going to have to be done without >government help. We can no longer expect someone >decent to get into office and fix everything, so we'll >have to focus energy on local elections and grassroots >change. > >If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights >agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their >ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal >states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana, >see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the >country against the fragmenting influence of the >"culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If >that means Alabama banning abortion and women >streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men >fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the >freedom to do what they want. > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. >www.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Nov 4 05:45:14 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:45:14 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction In-Reply-To: <00b601c4c226$4f168c00$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> References: <01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com> <4189A7D5.8080206@solution-consulting.com> <00b601c4c226$4f168c00$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Message-ID: <4189C1EA.2050901@solution-consulting.com> Val, your point is well taken. The support troops qualify on the M-16 in basic training, and then hardly ever fire their weapon. It is a scandal. With fluid battle situations and no front lines, everyone should be highly skilled with infantry weapons. I liked the M-14, the weapon I originally qualified on. Big, heavy, with a .30 round that could knock down a water buffalo. But it could not be fired full-auto, so we went to the M-16 (.223 round) . Light, nice to carry, not as noisy, but not a good combat weapon, not as good as the old M-14. We probably should have copied the klashnikov and stayed with a .30 round (7.62 mm). If I were the king I would do just that. the AK-47 is a splendid weapon. The soviet system may have been dumb, but they did amazing things with their weapons. I appreciate the fascinating story about your father. And I find your posts consistently insightful and informative. Lynn Johnson Val Geist wrote: > Dear Lynn, > > The M-16 was trouble in Vietnam, and appears to be so again. Issue > Klatchnikows! IN WW II the German military was reduced to begging > industry to copy the Russian T-34 tank - and forget fancy tanks. The > Panther was the reply! The Russians sure loved the one's they captured > and re-used! My father in law, a long-serving Wehrmacht officer who > survived, had a professional's admiration for Russian weaponry. It > worked when the German failed! Russia's "primitive" Moisin sniper > rifle with a - superlative! - little scope was used also by German > snipers! > > Do your support troops fail to get a thorough infantry training? Amazing! > > Cheers, Val Geist > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kendulf at shaw.ca Thu Nov 4 07:18:01 2004 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:18:01 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction References: <01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com> <4189A7D5.8080206@solution-consulting.com> <00b601c4c226$4f168c00$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> <4189C1EA.2050901@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <001701c4c23e$6be531c0$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Lynn, The Discovery Channel had an interesting series comparing weapons, including one on the M-16 versus the Kalatchnikov. There is little doubt that I would prefer the Russian creation in battle! I have never fired either one, having qualified on the Lee Enfield No. 4, mark I in 303 British in a Canadian rifle regiment (Regina Rifles). With a sling from prone using the regular peep-sight I could place then five shots into less than a 3 inch circle at 100 yds. Merely to illustrate that I am addicted to the quick, but aimed shot, which I am also in hunting. So, the automatic weapon has never quite appealed to me though I did fire the 9 mm sten gun a good many times. Hence my appreciation of the modern assault rifle is purely distant and intellectual. How could you knock out an enemy taking cover behind a tree with either the M-16 or the Kalatchnikov, as neither has much ability to penetrate? With the old 303 amour piercing ammo the chap behind the tree would be quickly knocked out! Automatic fire? I'd be afraid of running out of ammo! Accuracy in automatic fire? Accurate automatic fire is an oxymoron! (Though the old Bren gun was very accurate in single fire!). However, I have to defer to the following: In WW II the German military gave battle-experienced lieutenants the task of designing the ideal infantry rifle, based on their collective experience. That's how the G 43 in 8mm short came to be, a precursor to and the inspiration for the Kalatchnikov. And that I have to respect! That's experience used to its best advantage, and the Kalatchnikov proved these German lieutenants right! So, it's probably better than the tried and true Lee Enfield, a superior infantry weapon to the Mauser 98 or the old Springfield. I have handled the M-14 but never shot it. On my last day ever on maneuver the new FN rifles in 7.62 Nato were brought out for us kids to try. The Canadian army was about to ditch the old lee Enfield. There was only enough ammo to allow us 4 shots apiece, which I put at a 100 yds into a 4 inch circle. It was a pleasant rifle to shoot! Then my days in uniform were over and I went on to university. I still have a hard time believing that I was never recalled for service. Lucky me. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Val, your point is well taken. The support troops qualify on the M-16 in basic training, and then hardly ever fire their weapon. It is a scandal. With fluid battle situations and no front lines, everyone should be highly skilled with infantry weapons. I liked the M-14, the weapon I originally qualified on. Big, heavy, with a .30 round that could knock down a water buffalo. But it could not be fired full-auto, so we went to the M-16 (.223 round) . Light, nice to carry, not as noisy, but not a good combat weapon, not as good as the old M-14. We probably should have copied the klashnikov and stayed with a .30 round (7.62 mm). If I were the king I would do just that. the AK-47 is a splendid weapon. The soviet system may have been dumb, but they did amazing things with their weapons. I appreciate the fascinating story about your father. And I find your posts consistently insightful and informative. Lynn Johnson Val Geist wrote: Dear Lynn, The M-16 was trouble in Vietnam, and appears to be so again. Issue Klatchnikows! IN WW II the German military was reduced to begging industry to copy the Russian T-34 tank - and forget fancy tanks. The Panther was the reply! The Russians sure loved the one's they captured and re-used! My father in law, a long-serving Wehrmacht officer who survived, had a professional's admiration for Russian weaponry. It worked when the German failed! Russia's "primitive" Moisin sniper rifle with a - superlative! - little scope was used also by German snipers! Do your support troops fail to get a thorough infantry training? Amazing! Cheers, Val Geist ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 4 14:10:55 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:10:55 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Message-ID: <01C4C235.0BB59000.shovland@mindspring.com> Overnight I have come to the conclusion that we experienced an electronic coup d'etat on Tuesday. During the count there were periods when few electoral votes were tallied. I think those were the times when the contents of the electronic voting machines were being edited via wired or wireless connections. I once heard the data inside those things refered to as an "mdb." "mdb" is the file extension for the Microsoft Access database many of us have on our desk tops. I think John Kerry was a co-conspirator, and that Edwards was placed on the ticket to neutralize him. He is charismatic enough to be dangerous to some people. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Val Geist [SMTP:kendulf at shaw.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:18 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Dear Lynn, The Discovery Channel had an interesting series comparing weapons, including one on the M-16 versus the Kalatchnikov. There is little doubt that I would prefer the Russian creation in battle! I have never fired either one, having qualified on the Lee Enfield No. 4, mark I in 303 British in a Canadian rifle regiment (Regina Rifles). With a sling from prone using the regular peep-sight I could place then five shots into less than a 3 inch circle at 100 yds. Merely to illustrate that I am addicted to the quick, but aimed shot, which I am also in hunting. So, the automatic weapon has never quite appealed to me though I did fire the 9 mm sten gun a good many times. Hence my appreciation of the modern assault rifle is purely distant and intellectual. How could you knock out an enemy taking cover behind a tree with either the M-16 or the Kalatchnikov, as neither has much ability to penetrate? With the old 303 amour piercing ammo the chap behind the tree would be quickly knocked out! Automatic fire? I'd be afraid of running out of ammo! Accuracy in automatic fire? Accurate automatic fire is an oxymoron! (Though the old Bren gun was very accurate in single fire!). However, I have to defer to the following: In WW II the German military gave battle-experienced lieutenants the task of designing the ideal infantry rifle, based on their collective experience. That's how the G 43 in 8mm short came to be, a precursor to and the inspiration for the Kalatchnikov. And that I have to respect! That's experience used to its best advantage, and the Kalatchnikov proved these German lieutenants right! So, it's probably better than the tried and true Lee Enfield, a superior infantry weapon to the Mauser 98 or the old Springfield. I have handled the M-14 but never shot it. On my last day ever on maneuver the new FN rifles in 7.62 Nato were brought out for us kids to try. The Canadian army was about to ditch the old lee Enfield. There was only enough ammo to allow us 4 shots apiece, which I put at a 100 yds into a 4 inch circle. It was a pleasant rifle to shoot! Then my days in uniform were over and I went on to university. I still have a hard time believing that I was never recalled for service. Lucky me. Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. To: The new improved paleopsych list Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction Val, your point is well taken. The support troops qualify on the M-16 in basic training, and then hardly ever fire their weapon. It is a scandal. With fluid battle situations and no front lines, everyone should be highly skilled with infantry weapons. I liked the M-14, the weapon I originally qualified on. Big, heavy, with a .30 round that could knock down a water buffalo. But it could not be fired full-auto, so we went to the M-16 (.223 round) . Light, nice to carry, not as noisy, but not a good combat weapon, not as good as the old M-14. We probably should have copied the klashnikov and stayed with a .30 round (7.62 mm). If I were the king I would do just that. the AK-47 is a splendid weapon. The soviet system may have been dumb, but they did amazing things with their weapons. I appreciate the fascinating story about your father. And I find your posts consistently insightful and informative. Lynn Johnson Val Geist wrote: Dear Lynn, The M-16 was trouble in Vietnam, and appears to be so again. Issue Klatchnikows! IN WW II the German military was reduced to begging industry to copy the Russian T-34 tank - and forget fancy tanks. The Panther was the reply! The Russians sure loved the one's they captured and re-used! My father in law, a long-serving Wehrmacht officer who survived, had a professional's admiration for Russian weaponry. It worked when the German failed! Russia's "primitive" Moisin sniper rifle with a - superlative! - little scope was used also by German snipers! Do your support troops fail to get a thorough infantry training? Amazing! Cheers, Val Geist ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 << File: ATT00004.html >> << File: ATT00005.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 4 14:56:11 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 06:56:11 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What's coming our way Message-ID: <01C4C23B.5EE8CA70.shovland@mindspring.com> Social Darwinism Introduction Social Darwinism is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view that came from the mind of Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century. It did not achieve wide acceptance in England or Europe, but flourished in this country, as is true of many ideologies, religions, and philosophies. A good summary of Social Darwinism is by Johnson: In these years, when Darwin's Origin of Species, popularized by Herbert Spencer as "the survival of the fittest, " and applied to races as well as species in a vulgarized form, Social Darwinism, the coming Christian triumph was presented as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant one. Social Darwinism is by no means dead, for vestiges of it can be found in the present. What Is "Darwinism?" Charles Darwin was an English biologist who, along with a few others, developed a biological concept that has been vulgarized and attacked from the moment his major work, The Origin of Species, was published in 1859. An accurate and brief picture of his contribution to biology is probably his own: Evolution is transmission with adaptation. Darwin saw in his epochal trip aboard the ship The Beagle in the 1830s what many others had seen but did not draw the proper conclusions. In the Galapagos Islands, off South America, Darwin noted that very large tortoises differed slightly from one island to the next. He noted also that finches also differed from one geographical location to the next. Some had shorter beaks, useful for cracking seeds. Some had long, sharp beaks, useful for prying insects out of their hiding places. Some had long tail feathers, others short ones. Darwin took copious notes, captured insects and animals and selected plants. These he preserved in jars and took them back to England where he thought about the implications of what he had seen. for almost three decades. What occurred to him was a simple notion: animals, plants, insects, fishes, etc., which were obviously related differed slightly and these differences seemed to be tied in with their ability to survive. Differences, which he called "adaptations," were often related to geographical factors. He also saw something similar in fossils: certainly some fish, sea shells, etc., that died and were covered up by sand, gradually turned to stone, and were caught forever in fossil form. There seemed to be an interesting, complex relationship: extinct animals, fish, insects, plants, etc., looked somewhat like contemporary ones but were not in the same phyla. (That is, they were not of the same kind, type or variety.) What this seemed to mean to Darwin was biological evolution. Organisms better suited to their environment gained some survival advantage and passed their genetically transmitted advantages to their offsprings. Darwin thought that this process was extremely slow and even. In fact, we became aware that it is neither slow nor even: there are examples of a good deal of change in a short period of time; and there are examples of very little change over a long period of time. Nor did Darwin understand the mechanism by which the transmission took place. This was to be figured out by Gregor Mendel, Thomas Hunt Morgan, DeVries and in our own time, Watson and Crick who deduced the spiral shape of the DNA molecule. Darwin's discoveries struck his native England, as well as Europe, and this country with an enormous impact. They ran into total conflict with the idea of special creation, which one can find in the Book of Genesis, especially Chapter I and II. The emotional impact of Darwin's discoveries have not abated. The Misapplication of a Biological Theory But, for our purposes, it is the use to which some people made of biological evolution which concerns us. Some simplified the idea to "survival of the fittest." Others believed that an identical process took place among human beings. They believed that white Protestant Europeans had evolved much further and faster than other "races." And some, especially the followers of Herbert Spencer, took it one step further. Human society is always in a kind of evolutionary process in which the fittest- which happened to be those who can make lots of money--were chosen to dominate. There were armies of unfit, the poor, who simply could not compete. And just as nature weeds out the unfit, an enlightened society ought to weed out its unfit and permit them to die off so as not to weaken the racial stock. This idea eventually led to a variety of practices and beliefs, e.g., Nordic Racism, used by German anthropologists and later Nazi theoreticians. It also led to eugenics in which, it was believed, the unfit transmit their undesirable characteristics. A breeding program for human beings would see to it that the unfit did not transmit their undesirable characteristics. Another application of a biological concept to human behavior was the notion that any attempt to provide welfare for the poor was a tragically misguided mistake. Feeding or housing the poor simply permitted them to survive and to transmit their unfitness to their children, who in turn would pass it on to their children. A spurious piece of sociology about two families known as the Jukes and the Kallikaks purported to trace a race of criminals and prostitutes to two persons in the Revolutionary War. This study was used for many years to demonstrate that "inferiority" was inherited. Many in our culture did not bother to read Spencer, Darwin nor did they realize the oversimplification of eugenics. But that is not the point. The point is that a piece of ideology got into American life and assumed considerable importance. What is also significant is that some, e.g., wealthy industrialists, believed that what they were doing was supported by science. Yes, they said, the caucasian, European-derived male industrialist was at the apex of evolution. And yes, they said, it is undesirable to provide, as public policy, governmental support for any plan that would perpetuate racial weakness. Other social theories competed with Social Darwinism. By the 1930s, the New Deal created a climate in which the government was responsible for a "net" that would not allow any individual to lapse into abject poverty, homelessness on a wide scale, hunger or destitution. However, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was elected on a platform which declared that New Deal policies were responsible for poverty, crime, and all other social problems. Government, Reagan kept on repeating, was not any part of a solution to the problem. Government was the problem. Therefore, a good many policies based upon the "net" concept were weakened or simply eliminated. As we approach the millennium, it is not accurate to say that 19th century Social Darwinism, "Reaganomics," New Deal philosophy or its manifestation in the economic policies of President Clinton is now dominant. A fair assessment is that all of these ideologies can be found within our society--as public policy and as belief structure. The ability of conflicting, incompatible social philosophies to live side by side, even within the same person, (cite) explains why there is so much unresolved conflict, why it is difficult for a given bit of social policy to achieve permanence. why, as many have pointed out, there is considerable poverty in the wealthiest society in the world. From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Nov 4 19:22:58 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:22:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] religion and politics In-Reply-To: <200411041900.iA4J0t006424@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041104192258.20202.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com> >>Eventually the pain may get bad enough to wake some people up.<< --Here's the problem: the worse things get, the more the conservative Christians will believe Armageddon is here, and the more they'll push for a "godly" President. It will take decades for them to realize the Rapture isn't going to happen. It was gay marriage that put Bush over the top. People collecting signatures for anti-gay marriage initiatives registered a lot of voters. Kerry lost, in large part because his state is too tolerant for the Evangelicals. So really, if you think about it, the mess that's coming will be largely due to revulsion over men holding hands. Aliens are going to write books about us. And musicals. And they'll depict us all carrying Bibles, with propeller-beanies on our heads. I suddenly understand what it was like for the students in Iran, when the fundamentalists shoved them back after being so close to reforms. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 4 22:33:39 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:33:39 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] religion and politics Message-ID: <01C4C27B.4713EA70.shovland@mindspring.com> Suppose the evangelicals mutate into Brown Shirts. Do the sane people just stand back and let them run amuck? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:23 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] religion and politics >>Eventually the pain may get bad enough to wake some people up.<< --Here's the problem: the worse things get, the more the conservative Christians will believe Armageddon is here, and the more they'll push for a "godly" President. It will take decades for them to realize the Rapture isn't going to happen. It was gay marriage that put Bush over the top. People collecting signatures for anti-gay marriage initiatives registered a lot of voters. Kerry lost, in large part because his state is too tolerant for the Evangelicals. So really, if you think about it, the mess that's coming will be largely due to revulsion over men holding hands. Aliens are going to write books about us. And musicals. And they'll depict us all carrying Bibles, with propeller-beanies on our heads. I suddenly understand what it was like for the students in Iran, when the fundamentalists shoved them back after being so close to reforms. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Nov 4 23:06:35 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:06:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] What's coming our way References: <01C4C23B.5EE8CA70.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <025901c4c2c2$eff45e30$8a49bb3f@S0027397558> Re: Social Darwinism. The following is a powerful statement: >> What occurred to him (Darwin) was a simple notion: animals, plants, insects, fishes, etc., which were obviously related differed slightly and these differences seemed to be tied in with their ability to survive. Differences, which he called "adaptations," were often related to geographical factors. >> and is one I definitely agree with. All living things are related with each species or sub-species adapting to the environment. The major social faux pas happened when races of man were viewed in the same light....i.e. some "groups" of humans were more advanced than others. This propelled Hitler's Nazi movement and led to the persecution of Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etc. Eugenics has returned again and in this year of 2004 is plaguing us under the aegis of "science". Stem cell research should aid in eliminating some of the more devastating of afflictions and shortly human cloning should produce a viable product. Conflicting social philosophies became apparent on Nov. 2 when America re-elected President Bush by 2 percentage points. With so many social variables (religion, abortion, cloning, environmental platforms, poverty, etc.) operable today, it's no wonder the rest of the world perceives America as being divided. Many Americans believe it is. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Nov 5 15:06:15 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 07:06:15 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Electronic coup d'etat: how easy it is Message-ID: <01C4C305.F1AD0F40.shovland@mindspring.com> "Our analysis shows that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts." http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 6 04:17:19 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:17:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Electronic coup d'etat: one way to do it Message-ID: <01C4C374.749C00A0.shovland@mindspring.com> Programmers use something called pseudocode to describe functions in more or less plain English. On the radio I heard some speculation about votes being multipled. Here's the pseudocode: If the candidate is Bush, then the value of the vote is 1.02. If the candidate is Kerry, then the value of the vote is 1. Whether this was done might be determined by breaking open the black boxes and inspecting the data and code. If it was done on-line then it could not be detected unless you get to the "mother" computer. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Nov 6 04:26:39 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:26:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] religious right In-Reply-To: <200411051900.iA5J0V001873@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041106042639.31791.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> >>Suppose the evangelicals mutate into Brown Shirts. Do the sane people just stand back and let them run amuck?<< --I do not believe most American Christians would turn into thugs (not to mention, such talk sounds like paranoid leftist ranting to conservatives). They're capable of discriminating against atheists, feminists, gays and liberals, on a subtle level. They are capable of maddening pride and many are capable of verbal bullying. But if some part of the Christian community descended to the thug level, they would be disowned by the majority, and it would harm their cause more than anything their opponents could do. Of course, if people riot against them, they'll have every reason to support police crackdowns. You have to be more Christlike than the Christians, apply Gandhi's principles of nonviolent social transformation, and avoid matching anger with anger. There is no way to defeat the religious right with hate, no way to beat them back with force. They will defeat themselves, if atheists, liberals, feminists and gays are more Christlike than they are. Trust me, when you apply Christ's teachings with a Christian who fails to understand brotherly love, it infuriates them and they cut their own throats. Their own insulting behavior renders their arguments impotent. Also helps if you have a Buddhist understanding of attachment to power and identity. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims have a lot of "issues" revolving around submission vs. control. They are easily knocked off center by someone who loves them and hates their sin, so to speak. They tend to become their opposite, so whatever they hate gives you some indication of what they resist inwardly. Social jujitsu is very effective with that kind of person, and if you can restrain your own anger and find some part of you that really cares about the "fundie", you can transform the situation with no physical confrontation whatsoever. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 6 06:28:54 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:28:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] religious right Message-ID: <01C4C386.D57A69E0.shovland@mindspring.com> The good fundamentalist kids are busy getting blissed out on Jesus rock and on not having sex :-) The guys with too much testoterone probably join the Marines... Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:27 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] religious right >>Suppose the evangelicals mutate into Brown Shirts. Do the sane people just stand back and let them run amuck?<< --I do not believe most American Christians would turn into thugs (not to mention, such talk sounds like paranoid leftist ranting to conservatives). They're capable of discriminating against atheists, feminists, gays and liberals, on a subtle level. They are capable of maddening pride and many are capable of verbal bullying. But if some part of the Christian community descended to the thug level, they would be disowned by the majority, and it would harm their cause more than anything their opponents could do. Of course, if people riot against them, they'll have every reason to support police crackdowns. You have to be more Christlike than the Christians, apply Gandhi's principles of nonviolent social transformation, and avoid matching anger with anger. There is no way to defeat the religious right with hate, no way to beat them back with force. They will defeat themselves, if atheists, liberals, feminists and gays are more Christlike than they are. Trust me, when you apply Christ's teachings with a Christian who fails to understand brotherly love, it infuriates them and they cut their own throats. Their own insulting behavior renders their arguments impotent. Also helps if you have a Buddhist understanding of attachment to power and identity. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims have a lot of "issues" revolving around submission vs. control. They are easily knocked off center by someone who loves them and hates their sin, so to speak. They tend to become their opposite, so whatever they hate gives you some indication of what they resist inwardly. Social jujitsu is very effective with that kind of person, and if you can restrain your own anger and find some part of you that really cares about the "fundie", you can transform the situation with no physical confrontation whatsoever. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Nov 6 11:34:42 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 04:34:42 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] religious right In-Reply-To: <01C4C386.D57A69E0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4C386.D57A69E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <418CB6D2.5060007@solution-consulting.com> The kind of attributions Michael made and your responses are really hate speech and have no place in a thoughtful dialog. They are also completely wrong, as all projective language is, coming from your own unresolved issues. Why not embrace Kerry's concession speech and try uniting? All hate speech does is further polarizes. Lynn Steve Hovland wrote: >The good fundamentalist kids are busy >getting blissed out on Jesus rock and on >not having sex :-) > >The guys with too much testoterone >probably join the Marines... > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:27 PM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] religious right > > > > >>>Suppose the evangelicals mutate into Brown >>> >>> >Shirts. Do the sane people just stand back and let >them run amuck?<< > >--I do not believe most American Christians would turn >into thugs (not to mention, such talk sounds like >paranoid leftist ranting to conservatives). They're >capable of discriminating against atheists, feminists, >gays and liberals, on a subtle level. They are capable >of maddening pride and many are capable of verbal >bullying. But if some part of the Christian community >descended to the thug level, they would be disowned by >the majority, and it would harm their cause more than >anything their opponents could do. > >Of course, if people riot against them, they'll have >every reason to support police crackdowns. You have to >be more Christlike than the Christians, apply Gandhi's >principles of nonviolent social transformation, and >avoid matching anger with anger. There is no way to >defeat the religious right with hate, no way to beat >them back with force. They will defeat themselves, if >atheists, liberals, feminists and gays are more >Christlike than they are. Trust me, when you apply >Christ's teachings with a Christian who fails to >understand brotherly love, it infuriates them and they >cut their own throats. Their own insulting behavior >renders their arguments impotent. > >Also helps if you have a Buddhist understanding of >attachment to power and identity. Fundamentalist >Christians and Muslims have a lot of "issues" >revolving around submission vs. control. They are >easily knocked off center by someone who loves them >and hates their sin, so to speak. They tend to become >their opposite, so whatever they hate gives you some >indication of what they resist inwardly. Social >jujitsu is very effective with that kind of person, >and if you can restrain your own anger and find some >part of you that really cares about the "fundie", you >can transform the situation with no physical >confrontation whatsoever. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. >www.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 6 12:04:05 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 04:04:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] religious right Message-ID: <01C4C3B5.A95344C0.shovland@mindspring.com> Actually, I was trying to be droll. I come from the heartland, so I speak from decades of living there. At the end, I felt betrayed by Kerry and the Democrats. Once I heard he was conceding, he became a dead man to me. Uniting behind Bush is out of the question. There is too much at stake. The end of the election didn't change that. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 3:35 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] religious right The kind of attributions Michael made and your responses are really hate speech and have no place in a thoughtful dialog. They are also completely wrong, as all projective language is, coming from your own unresolved issues. Why not embrace Kerry's concession speech and try uniting? All hate speech does is further polarizes. Lynn Steve Hovland wrote: >The good fundamentalist kids are busy >getting blissed out on Jesus rock and on >not having sex :-) > >The guys with too much testoterone >probably join the Marines... > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:27 PM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] religious right > > > > >>>Suppose the evangelicals mutate into Brown >>> >>> >Shirts. Do the sane people just stand back and let >them run amuck?<< > >--I do not believe most American Christians would turn >into thugs (not to mention, such talk sounds like >paranoid leftist ranting to conservatives). They're >capable of discriminating against atheists, feminists, >gays and liberals, on a subtle level. They are capable >of maddening pride and many are capable of verbal >bullying. But if some part of the Christian community >descended to the thug level, they would be disowned by >the majority, and it would harm their cause more than >anything their opponents could do. > >Of course, if people riot against them, they'll have >every reason to support police crackdowns. You have to >be more Christlike than the Christians, apply Gandhi's >principles of nonviolent social transformation, and >avoid matching anger with anger. There is no way to >defeat the religious right with hate, no way to beat >them back with force. They will defeat themselves, if >atheists, liberals, feminists and gays are more >Christlike than they are. Trust me, when you apply >Christ's teachings with a Christian who fails to >understand brotherly love, it infuriates them and they >cut their own throats. Their own insulting behavior >renders their arguments impotent. > >Also helps if you have a Buddhist understanding of >attachment to power and identity. Fundamentalist >Christians and Muslims have a lot of "issues" >revolving around submission vs. control. They are >easily knocked off center by someone who loves them >and hates their sin, so to speak. They tend to become >their opposite, so whatever they hate gives you some >indication of what they resist inwardly. Social >jujitsu is very effective with that kind of person, >and if you can restrain your own anger and find some >part of you that really cares about the "fundie", you >can transform the situation with no physical >confrontation whatsoever. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. >www.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00009.html >> << File: ATT00010.txt >> From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Nov 6 19:36:58 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:36:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] hate speech In-Reply-To: <200411061900.iA6J0a004790@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041106193658.37443.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> >>The kind of attributions Michael made and your responses are really hate speech and have no place in a thoughtful dialog.<< --Be more specific, if you're going to accuse someone of "hate speech". Is it hate speech when someone accuses liberals of wanting to ban the Bible? Or when people claim gay marriage will destroy the country? I hope you're at least consistent in your accusations. But do be specific when making accusations, or there's no way to answer them. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Nov 7 00:05:33 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Electronic coup d'etat: one way to do it In-Reply-To: <01C4C374.749C00A0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041106190144.00c56b70@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:17 PM 11/5/2004 -0800, Steve Hovland wrote: >Programmers use something called pseudocode to >describe functions in more or less plain English. > >On the radio I heard some speculation about votes >being multipled. Here's the pseudocode: > >If the candidate is Bush, then the value of the vote >is 1.02. > >If the candidate is Kerry, then the value of the vote >is 1. Last I heard from IEEE-USA they were indeed worried about security in today's electronic voting systems. So far as I know, the "Unix-derived" (or really Multics-derived) operating system developed by Schell (described on the web) is the ONLY essentially unbreakable operating system out there. The others seem to be collapsing to some degree under the weight of patches trying to hold up something which does not have the integrity to hold itself up. Only one government agency uses it, which adds real worry not only re elections but any other shared databases, such as those planned for homeland security. Who is best equipped to exploit such holes? Some would guess China before anyone else. >Whether this was done might be determined by >breaking open the black boxes and inspecting the >data and code. If it was done on-line then it could >not be detected unless you get to the "mother" >computer. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Nov 7 00:59:52 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:59:52 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Electronic coup d'etat: one way to do it Message-ID: <01C4C422.09059730.shovland@mindspring.com> In our dealings with China, it's hard for me to tell whether naivete or treason is playing the larger role :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 4:06 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list; paleopsych at paleopsych. org (E-mail); Bernie Ward (E-mail); Gene Burns (E-mail); Art Bell (E-mail); Paul Krugman (E-mail); Bob Herbert (E-mail) Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Electronic coup d'etat: one way to do it At 08:17 PM 11/5/2004 -0800, Steve Hovland wrote: >Programmers use something called pseudocode to >describe functions in more or less plain English. > >On the radio I heard some speculation about votes >being multipled. Here's the pseudocode: > >If the candidate is Bush, then the value of the vote >is 1.02. > >If the candidate is Kerry, then the value of the vote >is 1. Last I heard from IEEE-USA they were indeed worried about security in today's electronic voting systems. So far as I know, the "Unix-derived" (or really Multics-derived) operating system developed by Schell (described on the web) is the ONLY essentially unbreakable operating system out there. The others seem to be collapsing to some degree under the weight of patches trying to hold up something which does not have the integrity to hold itself up. Only one government agency uses it, which adds real worry not only re elections but any other shared databases, such as those planned for homeland security. Who is best equipped to exploit such holes? Some would guess China before anyone else. >Whether this was done might be determined by >breaking open the black boxes and inspecting the >data and code. If it was done on-line then it could >not be detected unless you get to the "mother" >computer. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Nov 7 17:58:45 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 09:58:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The US is committing genocide in Fallujah Message-ID: <01C4C4B0.5F4B11E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Innocent men, women, and children are being killed by bombs and artillery simply because they have nowhere else to go. What is the justification for this? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ross.buck at uconn.edu Mon Nov 8 19:21:57 2004 From: ross.buck at uconn.edu (Ross Buck) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy In-Reply-To: <01C4C1DF.F605A790.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <200411081922.iA8JMD032423@tick.javien.com> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 8 20:07:35 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:07:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy Message-ID: <01C4C58B.89548440.shovland@mindspring.com> here's where I got the fax numbers I use to talk to congress: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Ross Buck [SMTP:ross.buck at uconn.edu] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 11:22 AM To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Mon Nov 8 20:20:19 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:20:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy References: <01C4C58B.89548440.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <023d01c4c5d0$5f861a30$8748bb3f@S0027397558> The link works well. Who colored in the states? Has democracy finally been perfected? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:07 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > here's where I got the fax numbers I use to > talk to congress: > > http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ > > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Buck [SMTP:ross.buck at uconn.edu] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 11:22 AM > To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' > Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > > "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and > more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day > the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and > the > White House will be adorned by a downright moron." > > H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 9 01:34:28 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:34:28 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Black box investigation began the day after the election Message-ID: <01C4C5B9.333E9EA0.shovland@mindspring.com> SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Nov 3 2004 -- Did the voting machines trump exit polls? There's a way to find out. Black Box Voting (.ORG) is conducting the largest Freedom of Information action in history. At 8:30 p.m. Election Night, Black Box Voting blanketed the U.S. with the first in a series of public records requests, to obtain internal computer logs and other documents from 3,000 individual counties and townships. Networks called the election before anyone bothered to perform even the most rudimentary audit. America: We have permission to say No to unaudited voting. It is our right. Among the first requests sent to counties (with all kinds of voting systems -- optical scan, touch-screen, and punch card) is a formal records request for internal audit logs, polling place results slips, modem transmission logs, and computer trouble slips. An earlier FOIA is more sensitive, and has not been disclosed here. We will notify you as soon as we can go public with it. Such a request filed in King County, Washington on Sept. 15, following the primary election six weeks ago, uncovered an internal audit log containing a three-hour deletion on election night; "trouble slips" revealing suspicious modem activity; and profound problems with security, including accidental disclosure of critically sensitive remote access information to poll workers, office personnel, and even, in a shocking blunder, to Black Box Voting activists. Black Box Voting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer protection group for elections. You may view the first volley of public records requests here: Freedom of Information requests here Responses from public officials will be posted in the forum, is organized by state and county, so that any news organization or citizens group has access to the information. Black Box Voting will assist in analysis, by providing expertise in evaluating the records. Watch for the records online; Black Box Voting will be posting the results as they come in. And by the way, these are not free. The more donations we get, the more FOIAs we are empowered to do. Time's a'wasting. We look forward to seeing you participate in this process. Join us in evaluating the previously undisclosed inside information about how our voting system works. http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 9 02:12:45 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:12:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Proposed new flag Message-ID: <01C4C5BE.8CD4A220.shovland@mindspring.com> The crossed fasces (from which we get fascism) represent the combination of government and corporate power. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 130988 bytes Desc: not available URL: From checker at panix.com Tue Nov 9 02:55:54 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:55:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Citation, Please Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Ross Buck [SMTP:ross.buck at uconn.edu] As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) I don't recognize the quotation, though it sounds very much like Mr. Mencken. I run the e-mail list for the Mencken Society and have asked its subscribers, but (so far) no one has identified it. Frank From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Nov 9 03:53:08 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:53:08 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy References: <01C4C599.F2D107F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <04f001c4c60f$a1951e50$8748bb3f@S0027397558> Then if many have doubt about a sophisticated election process, they should relinquish the right for a "democratic vote" and allow "powerful man" to make the decison Is shift from imperfections of Democracy being superceded by thrust of Totalitarianism? Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:50 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > Check this: > > www.avirubin.com/vote.pdf > > On the surface, the machines worked just > fine. But below the surface, monsters ruled :-) > > To me, all of the analysis about "the voters this, > the voters that" means absolutely nothing. > > I don't think the voters decided this election, nor > will we decide any future election until we clean > up the security issues and establish comprehensive > audit facilities to demonstrate the legitimacy of > the elections. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:40 PM > To: shovland at mindspring.com > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > Only if you don't believe in the democratic progess and viability of > machines. > From what I'm able to glean, it seems that voting machines did their > thing. > Even in Florida. > Too bad Mencken was overly educated when compared to rest of electorate. > That would make > him is the less than 2% of American public. And that ain't a voting > majority. > Get used to it.....America is filled with plains folks and conestoga wagon > travellers. There are only a few > places where the "blues" can hang out and that includes New England and > the > west coast with a smattering on our north central border. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Hovland" > To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:38 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > >> The colors have no relation to the one's >> you were seeing of late. >> >> I think our democracy is perfectly broken >> at the moment. Prognosis unknown. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:20 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list >> Cc: shovland at mindspring.com >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >> >> The link works well. Who colored in the states? >> Has democracy finally been perfected? >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Hovland" >> To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:07 PM >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >> >> >>> here's where I got the fax numbers I use to >>> talk to congress: >>> >>> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ >>> >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ross Buck [SMTP:ross.buck at uconn.edu] >>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 11:22 AM >>> To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' >>> Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>> >>> >>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and >>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious >>> day >>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and >>> the >>> White House will be adorned by a downright moron." >>> >>> H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> > > From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 9 05:14:18 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:14:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] FOIA request content to voting officials Message-ID: <01C4C5D7.E916C2C0.shovland@mindspring.com> from blackboxvoting.org We request the following records. Item 1. All notes, emails, memos, and other communications pertaining to any and all problems experienced with the voting system, ballots, voter registration, or any component of your elections process, beginning October 12, through November 3, 2004. Item 2. Copies of the results slips from all polling places for the Nov. 2, 2004 election. If you have more than one copy, we would like the copy that is signed by your poll workers and/or election judges. Item 3: The internal audit log for each of your Unity, GEMS, WinEds, Hart Intercivic or other central tabulating machine. Because different manufacturers call this program by different names, for purposes of clarification we mean the programs that tally the composite of votes from all locations. Item 4: If you are in the special category of having Diebold equipment, or the VTS or GEMS tabulator, we request the following additional audit logs: a. The transmission logs for all votes, whether sent by modem or uploaded directly. You will find these logs in the GEMS menu under "Accuvote OS Server" and/or "Accuvote TS Server" b. The "audit log" referred to in Item 3 for Diebold is found in the GEMS menu and is called "Audit Log" c. All "Poster logs". These can be found in the GEMS menu under "poster" and also in the GEMS directory under Program Files, GEMS, Data, as a text file. Simply print this out and provide it. d. Also in the Data file directory under Program Files, GEMS, Data, please provide any and all logs titled "CCLog," "PosterLog", and Pserver Log, and any logs found within the "Download," "Log," "Poster" or "Results" directories. e. We are also requesting the Election Night Statement of Votes Cast, as of the time you stopped uploading polling place memory cards for Nov. 2, 2004 election. Item 5: We are requesting every iteration of every interim results report, from the time the polls close until 5 p.m. November 3. Item 6: If you are in the special category of counties who have modems attached, whether or not they were used and whether or not they were turned on, we are requesting the following: a. internal logs showing transmission times from each voting machine used in a polling place b. The Windows Event Viewer log. You will find this in administrative tools, Event Viewer, and within that, print a copy of each log beginning October 12, 2004 through Nov. 3, 2004. Item 7: All e-mails, letters, notes, and other correspondence between any employee of your elections division and any other person, pertaining to your voting system, any anomalies or problems with any component of the voting system, any written communications with vendors for any component of your voting system, and any records pertaining to upgrades, improvements, performance enhancement or any other changes to your voting system, between Oct. 12, 2004 and Nov. 3, 2004. Item 8: So that we may efficiently clarify any questions pertaining to your specific county, please provide letterhead for the most recent non-confidential correspondence between your office and your county counsel, or, in lieu of this, just e-mail us the contact information for your county counsel. From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 9 15:20:35 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:20:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] John Cage's Favorite Piano Message-ID: <01C4C62C.9BEF2BE0.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 119449 bytes Desc: not available URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Nov 10 00:23:12 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:23:12 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy References: <01C4C5D3.46498090.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <015301c4c6bb$7876eba0$f503f604@S0027397558> Steve, >>The problem we have is that the now we, the American people as a whole, have lost control of these systems and will be the victims of those who do control them until those systems are made honest. >> Any suggestions how to making voting machines honest? In the precinct where I voted, we were offered a choice of electronic voting or a paper ballot. I had expected that these voting machines would somehow record a paper vote but that wasn't the case. Are there actually machines that offer a paper readout or this this simply another urban legend. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:41 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > The simple fact is that the voting machines > were built to be hacked, and they were. > > As a person who makes a living gathering > requirements for computer systems, I can > tell you that the lack of audit trails and > paper printouts was not a mere oversight. > It was the design. > > The problem we have is that the now we, the > American people as a whole, have lost control > of these systems and will be the victims of > those who do control them until those systems > are made honest. > > The best hope we have is that all of the FOIA > requests will result in embarrassing lawsuits > that will lead to improvements by 2006. The > game THEY are playing is that with 2-4 years > of control they can do so much that it will take > decades to restore the previous order. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 7:53 PM > To: Steve Hovland > Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > Then if many have doubt about a sophisticated election process, they > should > relinquish the right for a "democratic vote" and allow "powerful man" to > make the decison > > Is shift from imperfections of Democracy being superceded by thrust of > Totalitarianism? > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Hovland" > To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:50 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > >> Check this: >> >> www.avirubin.com/vote.pdf >> >> On the surface, the machines worked just >> fine. But below the surface, monsters ruled :-) >> >> To me, all of the analysis about "the voters this, >> the voters that" means absolutely nothing. >> >> I don't think the voters decided this election, nor >> will we decide any future election until we clean >> up the security issues and establish comprehensive >> audit facilities to demonstrate the legitimacy of >> the elections. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:40 PM >> To: shovland at mindspring.com >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >> >> Only if you don't believe in the democratic progess and viability of >> machines. >> From what I'm able to glean, it seems that voting machines did their >> thing. >> Even in Florida. >> Too bad Mencken was overly educated when compared to rest of electorate. >> That would make >> him is the less than 2% of American public. And that ain't a voting >> majority. >> Get used to it.....America is filled with plains folks and conestoga >> wagon >> travellers. There are only a few >> places where the "blues" can hang out and that includes New England and >> the >> west coast with a smattering on our north central border. >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Hovland" >> To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" >> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:38 PM >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >> >> >>> The colors have no relation to the one's >>> you were seeing of late. >>> >>> I think our democracy is perfectly broken >>> at the moment. Prognosis unknown. >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:20 PM >>> To: The new improved paleopsych list >>> Cc: shovland at mindspring.com >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>> >>> The link works well. Who colored in the states? >>> Has democracy finally been perfected? >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> Independent Scholar >>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Steve Hovland" >>> To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:07 PM >>> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>> >>> >>>> here's where I got the fax numbers I use to >>>> talk to congress: >>>> >>>> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve Hovland >>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ross Buck [SMTP:ross.buck at uconn.edu] >>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 11:22 AM >>>> To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' >>>> Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>>> >>>> >>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more >>>> and >>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious >>>> day >>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and >>>> the >>>> White House will be adorned by a downright moron." >>>> >>>> H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 10 16:15:46 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:15:46 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fallujah Message-ID: <01C4C6FD.7B704F80.shovland@mindspring.com> The course of the battle suggests that in the end the US will find that it has one more paw stuck to the tar baby. The other side has maintained strategic discipline by holding to unconventional tactics- fighting and fading- rather than being drawn into a conventional fight-to- the-death within the city. When Wellington beat Napoleon at Waterloo it was in part because Napoleon executed his standard battle plan one time too many. Wellington had Napoleon's number and played it brilliantly. The danger for the US is that the other side will develop a habit of building temporary strong points which we will attack and occupy, thus spreading our troops ever more thinly. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Nov 10 16:58:34 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:58:34 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy References: <01C4C69D.2DEC4300.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <006401c4c746$857c4ad0$0b00f604@S0027397558> I think most Americans, especially those who don't use computers on a daily basis or who don't own one, like the idea of being "up to date". They feel a sense of pride and accomplishment when they complete their ballot via machine and smug when they view another voter experiencing some difficulty with the "new" technology. A paper trail, similar to a readout tape on an adding machine, sounded good in theory but too costly to implement especially when less than 2% of the voting public actually used a paper ballot . As I mentioned previously, in my precinct, only 5 people had requested a paper ballot. This proved to be a bit annoying for me since there were 5 voting machines for the majority of voters, and 1 voting booth for those wishing a paper ballot. That could have been one reason why the voting lines were so long. It's humorous that you claim the majority in Congress were put there by voting fraud. I wonder if they know who they are? If the purpose of a democracy is to allow everyone, regardless of race and sex, the right to vote, then we may have achieved our goal, perfect or not. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:46 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >I think your cynicism is justified. > > I find a lot of discussion about paper trails, > but no actual systems. > > People say Congress should enact laws > requiring paper trails. > > But if you have a majority in Congress that > was put there by machine fraud, you would > expect them to want to continue their > status quo. > > Hence the "Fascist States of America" flag. > > > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:13 PM > To: Steve Hovland > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > > Yea, great. Have you "seen" these voting machines with a print out? > > I doubt if they exist. > > If indeed they are a reality, they should be listed on the www. So far, I > haven't found reference to them. Have you? > > Gerry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Hovland" > To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 6:52 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > >> Voting machines can have printout just like >> your home pc does. >> >> I have seen pictures of machines that show >> the voter a paper with the choices she made >> and then they can press a button to accept >> the result. >> >> That's just a small part of the system. All >> of the internal programming and external >> communications also needs to be hardened >> and audited. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:23 PM >> To: Steve Hovland >> Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >> >> Steve, >> >>>>The problem we have is that the now we, the >> American people as a whole, have lost control >> of these systems and will be the victims of >> those who do control them until those systems >> are made honest. >> >> >> Any suggestions how to making voting machines honest? In the precinct >> where >> I voted, we were offered a choice of electronic voting or a paper ballot. >> I >> had expected that these voting machines would somehow record a paper vote >> but that wasn't the case. Are there actually machines that offer a paper >> readout or this this simply another urban legend. >> >> Gerry >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Hovland" >> To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" >> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:41 PM >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >> >> >>> The simple fact is that the voting machines >>> were built to be hacked, and they were. >>> >>> As a person who makes a living gathering >>> requirements for computer systems, I can >>> tell you that the lack of audit trails and >>> paper printouts was not a mere oversight. >>> It was the design. >>> >>> The problem we have is that the now we, the >>> American people as a whole, have lost control >>> of these systems and will be the victims of >>> those who do control them until those systems >>> are made honest. >>> >>> The best hope we have is that all of the FOIA >>> requests will result in embarrassing lawsuits >>> that will lead to improvements by 2006. The >>> game THEY are playing is that with 2-4 years >>> of control they can do so much that it will take >>> decades to restore the previous order. >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 7:53 PM >>> To: Steve Hovland >>> Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>> >>> Then if many have doubt about a sophisticated election process, they >>> should >>> relinquish the right for a "democratic vote" and allow "powerful man" to >>> make the decison >>> >>> Is shift from imperfections of Democracy being superceded by thrust of >>> Totalitarianism? >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> Independent Scholar >>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Steve Hovland" >>> To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" >>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:50 PM >>> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>> >>> >>>> Check this: >>>> >>>> www.avirubin.com/vote.pdf >>>> >>>> On the surface, the machines worked just >>>> fine. But below the surface, monsters ruled :-) >>>> >>>> To me, all of the analysis about "the voters this, >>>> the voters that" means absolutely nothing. >>>> >>>> I don't think the voters decided this election, nor >>>> will we decide any future election until we clean >>>> up the security issues and establish comprehensive >>>> audit facilities to demonstrate the legitimacy of >>>> the elections. >>>> >>>> Steve Hovland >>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:40 PM >>>> To: shovland at mindspring.com >>>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>>> >>>> Only if you don't believe in the democratic progess and viability of >>>> machines. >>>> From what I'm able to glean, it seems that voting machines did their >>>> thing. >>>> Even in Florida. >>>> Too bad Mencken was overly educated when compared to rest of >>>> electorate. >>>> That would make >>>> him is the less than 2% of American public. And that ain't a voting >>>> majority. >>>> Get used to it.....America is filled with plains folks and conestoga >>>> wagon >>>> travellers. There are only a few >>>> places where the "blues" can hang out and that includes New England and >>>> the >>>> west coast with a smattering on our north central border. >>>> >>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>> Independent Scholar >>>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Steve Hovland" >>>> To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" >>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:38 PM >>>> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>>> >>>> >>>>> The colors have no relation to the one's >>>>> you were seeing of late. >>>>> >>>>> I think our democracy is perfectly broken >>>>> at the moment. Prognosis unknown. >>>>> >>>>> Steve Hovland >>>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:20 PM >>>>> To: The new improved paleopsych list >>>>> Cc: shovland at mindspring.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>>>> >>>>> The link works well. Who colored in the states? >>>>> Has democracy finally been perfected? >>>>> >>>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>>>> Independent Scholar >>>>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Steve Hovland" >>>>> To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:07 PM >>>>> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> here's where I got the fax numbers I use to >>>>>> talk to congress: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve Hovland >>>>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ross Buck [SMTP:ross.buck at uconn.edu] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 11:22 AM >>>>>> To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' >>>>>> Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more >>>>>> and >>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and >>>>>> glorious >>>>>> day >>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last >>>>>> and >>>>>> the >>>>>> White House will be adorned by a downright moron." >>>>>> >>>>>> H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Nov 10 20:27:07 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:27:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] wart on error In-Reply-To: <200411101900.iAAJ0V029281@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041110202707.99377.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> >>The danger for the US is that the other side will develop a habit of building temporary strong points which we will attack and occupy, thus spreading our troops ever more thinly.<< --I think it's too early to say whether US strategy will work agains the Iraqi insurgency or whether it is just offering training exercises to insurgents who melt away when forces are massed against them. On top of that, there are always "soft targets" which are too expensive to defend adequately. Bin Laden's strategy is to bankrupt the US and make it too dangerous for people to do business with the US, and his strategy may have more opportunities to succeed than ours, if we cannot improve our intelligence networks to the point of anticipating attacks, especially by groups we do not currently track. Al Qaeda has opened up a market for terrorism, a vehicle for unknown groups to establish their name in the media by staging spectacular and gruesome atrocities. Using conventional forces against that will probably not work. We need to start applying marketing psychology to military psychology, and understand the enemy better than he understands us. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 10 21:11:21 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:11:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] wart on error Message-ID: <01C4C726.C67A6050.shovland@mindspring.com> It could be that the Democrats knew they had no real chance of winning and that Kerry's tough talk was intended to drive Bush into a position that would ultimately destroy him. I see no reason to believe that they will do the smart thing in Iraq. I think they will continue to "try" until we can't stand the financial and moral pain of what they are doing. Along the way we will become the global pariah. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 12:27 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] wart on error >>The danger for the US is that the other side will develop a habit of building temporary strong points which we will attack and occupy, thus spreading our troops ever more thinly.<< --I think it's too early to say whether US strategy will work agains the Iraqi insurgency or whether it is just offering training exercises to insurgents who melt away when forces are massed against them. On top of that, there are always "soft targets" which are too expensive to defend adequately. Bin Laden's strategy is to bankrupt the US and make it too dangerous for people to do business with the US, and his strategy may have more opportunities to succeed than ours, if we cannot improve our intelligence networks to the point of anticipating attacks, especially by groups we do not currently track. Al Qaeda has opened up a market for terrorism, a vehicle for unknown groups to establish their name in the media by staging spectacular and gruesome atrocities. Using conventional forces against that will probably not work. We need to start applying marketing psychology to military psychology, and understand the enemy better than he understands us. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Nov 10 21:23:52 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:23:52 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy References: <01C4C70B.4B9F1120.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <017201c4c76b$950223b0$0b00f604@S0027397558> Re-electing "everyone" at a date no later than 2006 is a dangerous proposition especially if our country turns into one huge red zone with only tiny pockets for blues. I think the reason provisional votes were not counted was because Bush received the number of Electoral College votes he needed to win. If reform is needed, we should begin with a critical review of benefits from the Electoral College. From where I stand, I can't see any. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:54 AM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > The justification given for not doing a paper trail now was > that there wasn't time. As a working computer jock, I > don't buy that. This problem was spotted many months > before the election. Practical solutions were demonstrated > and rejected. > > I think everyone who was on the ballot, both Democrat and > Republican, is there by fraud and that they should all be > required to stand again no later than 2006, this time with > hardened voting systems. > > The other part of getting everyone to vote is that every vote must > be counted. As I recall the election was considered to be > settled even though many provisional votes weren't counted. > The excuse was that those votes probably wouldn't have > changed the outcome. That might have been true, but it is > also true that for people to believe in the system, no decision > should be finalized until all legitimate votes have been counted > and all possibility of fraud has been ruled out. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:59 AM > To: Steve Hovland > Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > I think most Americans, especially those who don't use computers on a > daily > basis or who don't own one, like the idea of being "up to date". They > feel > a sense of pride and accomplishment when they complete their ballot via > machine and smug when they view another voter experiencing some difficulty > with the "new" technology. > > A paper trail, similar to a readout tape on an adding machine, sounded > good > in theory but too costly to implement especially when less than 2% of the > voting public actually used a paper ballot . As I mentioned previously, > in > my precinct, only 5 people had requested a paper ballot. This proved to > be > a bit annoying for me since there were 5 voting machines for the majority > of > voters, and 1 voting booth for those wishing a paper ballot. That could > have been one reason why the voting lines were so long. > > It's humorous that you claim the majority in Congress were put there by > voting fraud. I wonder if they know who they are? > > If the purpose of a democracy is to allow everyone, regardless of race and > sex, the right to vote, then we may have achieved our goal, perfect or > not. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Nov 11 01:33:04 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:33:04 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy In-Reply-To: <017201c4c76b$950223b0$0b00f604@S0027397558> References: <01C4C70B.4B9F1120.shovland@mindspring.com> <017201c4c76b$950223b0$0b00f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <4192C150.7070708@solution-consulting.com> G: RE: elec college, a good point. What good is it? The founding fathers distrusted two things: - government (jefferson) - democracy (hamilton) So the checks and balances are designed to prevent government from getting strong and democracy from disenfranchising the minorities. When people throw those aside, tragedy often results. So the main advantage of the electoral college was to protect small states. Shifts in the reality may have made those moot. But a change requires a constitutional amendment, a nortoriously hard process. Lynn Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > > Re-electing "everyone" at a date no later than 2006 is a dangerous > proposition especially if our country turns into one huge red zone > with only tiny pockets for blues. > > I think the reason provisional votes were not counted was because Bush > received the number of Electoral College votes he needed to win. If > reform is needed, we should begin with a critical review of benefits > from the Electoral College. From where I stand, I can't see any. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" > > To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:54 AM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > > >> The justification given for not doing a paper trail now was >> that there wasn't time. As a working computer jock, I >> don't buy that. This problem was spotted many months >> before the election. Practical solutions were demonstrated >> and rejected. >> >> I think everyone who was on the ballot, both Democrat and >> Republican, is there by fraud and that they should all be >> required to stand again no later than 2006, this time with >> hardened voting systems. >> >> The other part of getting everyone to vote is that every vote must >> be counted. As I recall the election was considered to be >> settled even though many provisional votes weren't counted. >> The excuse was that those votes probably wouldn't have >> changed the outcome. That might have been true, but it is >> also true that for people to believe in the system, no decision >> should be finalized until all legitimate votes have been counted >> and all possibility of fraud has been ruled out. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:59 AM >> To: Steve Hovland >> Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >> >> I think most Americans, especially those who don't use computers on a >> daily >> basis or who don't own one, like the idea of being "up to date". >> They feel >> a sense of pride and accomplishment when they complete their ballot via >> machine and smug when they view another voter experiencing some >> difficulty >> with the "new" technology. >> >> A paper trail, similar to a readout tape on an adding machine, >> sounded good >> in theory but too costly to implement especially when less than 2% of >> the >> voting public actually used a paper ballot . As I mentioned >> previously, in >> my precinct, only 5 people had requested a paper ballot. This proved >> to be >> a bit annoying for me since there were 5 voting machines for the >> majority of >> voters, and 1 voting booth for those wishing a paper ballot. That could >> have been one reason why the voting lines were so long. >> >> It's humorous that you claim the majority in Congress were put there by >> voting fraud. I wonder if they know who they are? >> >> If the purpose of a democracy is to allow everyone, regardless of >> race and >> sex, the right to vote, then we may have achieved our goal, perfect >> or not. >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From guavaberry at earthlink.net Thu Nov 11 03:31:06 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:31:06 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] coolest map so far Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041110223040.03d60ec0@mail.earthlink.net> here ya go http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/ Karen Ellis <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From guavaberry at earthlink.net Thu Nov 11 03:41:59 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] diebold In-Reply-To: <01C4C305.F1AD0F40.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4C305.F1AD0F40.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041110224121.03d4dec0@mail.earthlink.net> At 10:06 AM 11/5/2004, you wrote: "Our analysis shows that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts." http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf --- News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government November 10, 2004 http://www.legitgov.org/ http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news Diebold Source Code!!! --by ouranos (dailykos.com) "Dr. Avi Rubin is currently Professor of Computer Science at John Hopkins University. He 'accidentally' got his hands on a copy of the Diebold software program--Diebold's source code--which runs their e-voting machines. Dr. Rubin's students pored over 48,609 lines of code that make up this software. One line in particular stood out over all the rest: #defineDESKEY((des_KEY8F2654hd4" All commercial programs have provisions to be encrypted so as to protect them from having their contents read or changed by anyone not having the key... The line that staggered the Hopkins team was that the method used to encrypt the Diebold machines was a method called Digital Encryption Standard (DES), a code that was broken in 1997 and is NO LONGER USED by anyone to secure programs. F2654hd4 was the key to the encryption. Moreover, because the KEY was IN the source code, all Diebold machines would respond to the same key. Unlock one, you have then ALL unlocked. I can't believe there is a person alive who wouldn't understand the reason this was allowed to happen. This wasn't a mistake by any stretch of the imagination." ke <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Nov 11 03:44:45 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:44:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy References: <01C4C70B.4B9F1120.shovland@mindspring.com><017201c4c76b$950223b0$0b00f604@S0027397558> <4192C150.7070708@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <034e01c4c7a0$cac63a60$0b00f604@S0027397558> Lynn, A revampment of our political process regarding the obsolete Electoral College is an issue that I bet many disenfranchised Americans will rally around. Of what benefit does the Electoral College serve? I think this entity is a dinosaur preventing the true dispersal of Democracy in America. One person one vote is how I see democracy. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D." To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy > G: > RE: elec college, a good point. What good is it? The founding fathers > distrusted two things: > - government (jefferson) > - democracy (hamilton) > So the checks and balances are designed to prevent government from getting > strong and democracy from disenfranchising the minorities. When people > throw those aside, tragedy often results. > > So the main advantage of the electoral college was to protect small > states. Shifts in the reality may have made those moot. But a change > requires a constitutional amendment, a nortoriously hard process. > Lynn > > Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > >> >> Re-electing "everyone" at a date no later than 2006 is a dangerous >> proposition especially if our country turns into one huge red zone with >> only tiny pockets for blues. >> >> I think the reason provisional votes were not counted was because Bush >> received the number of Electoral College votes he needed to win. If >> reform is needed, we should begin with a critical review of benefits from >> the Electoral College. From where I stand, I can't see any. >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" >> >> To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" >> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:54 AM >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >> >> >>> The justification given for not doing a paper trail now was >>> that there wasn't time. As a working computer jock, I >>> don't buy that. This problem was spotted many months >>> before the election. Practical solutions were demonstrated >>> and rejected. >>> >>> I think everyone who was on the ballot, both Democrat and >>> Republican, is there by fraud and that they should all be >>> required to stand again no later than 2006, this time with >>> hardened voting systems. >>> >>> The other part of getting everyone to vote is that every vote must >>> be counted. As I recall the election was considered to be >>> settled even though many provisional votes weren't counted. >>> The excuse was that those votes probably wouldn't have >>> changed the outcome. That might have been true, but it is >>> also true that for people to believe in the system, no decision >>> should be finalized until all legitimate votes have been counted >>> and all possibility of fraud has been ruled out. >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:59 AM >>> To: Steve Hovland >>> Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy >>> >>> I think most Americans, especially those who don't use computers on a >>> daily >>> basis or who don't own one, like the idea of being "up to date". They >>> feel >>> a sense of pride and accomplishment when they complete their ballot via >>> machine and smug when they view another voter experiencing some >>> difficulty >>> with the "new" technology. >>> >>> A paper trail, similar to a readout tape on an adding machine, sounded >>> good >>> in theory but too costly to implement especially when less than 2% of >>> the >>> voting public actually used a paper ballot . As I mentioned >>> previously, in >>> my precinct, only 5 people had requested a paper ballot. This proved to >>> be >>> a bit annoying for me since there were 5 voting machines for the >>> majority of >>> voters, and 1 voting booth for those wishing a paper ballot. That could >>> have been one reason why the voting lines were so long. >>> >>> It's humorous that you claim the majority in Congress were put there by >>> voting fraud. I wonder if they know who they are? >>> >>> If the purpose of a democracy is to allow everyone, regardless of race >>> and >>> sex, the right to vote, then we may have achieved our goal, perfect or >>> not. >>> >>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >>> Independent Scholar >>> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 11 06:03:05 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:03:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] coolest map so far Message-ID: <01C4C771.0EC10860.shovland@mindspring.com> Excellent information. 3% of the population could easily change sides if events warrant. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:31 PM To: paleo Subject: [Paleopsych] coolest map so far here ya go http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/ Karen Ellis <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From guavaberry at earthlink.net Thu Nov 11 14:15:03 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:15:03 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041111091230.01a80450@mail.earthlink.net> When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack, or count himself lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to arouse confidence in his orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of convictions, of enthusiasm, or self-respect, it is cruelly hard The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second or third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. --H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920 <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From n.j.c.bannan at reading.ac.uk Thu Nov 11 14:23:12 2004 From: n.j.c.bannan at reading.ac.uk (Nicholas Bannan) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:23:12 -0000 Subject: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. References: <6.1.2.0.0.20041111091230.01a80450@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <01e501c4c7f9$fa16d140$6882e186@.rdg.ac.uk> Wonderful: One small swagger for a man; one great leap backwrads for mankind? ----- Original Message ----- From: "K.E." To: "paleo" Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:15 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack, or count himself lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to arouse confidence in his orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of convictions, of enthusiasm, or self-respect, it is cruelly hard. The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second or third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. --H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920 <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 11 14:55:57 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:55:57 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. Message-ID: <01C4C7BB.7F28D250.shovland@mindspring.com> The Democrats and other losing parties don't understand what the Republicans understand very well: you must appeal to basic emotions. Progressive causes can be connected to those emotions, but we haven't seen much of it yet. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Nicholas Bannan [SMTP:n.j.c.bannan at reading.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:23 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. Wonderful: One small swagger for a man; one great leap backwrads for mankind? ----- Original Message ----- From: "K.E." To: "paleo" Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:15 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack, or count himself lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to arouse confidence in his orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of convictions, of enthusiasm, or self-respect, it is cruelly hard. The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second or third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. --H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920 <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 11 14:57:34 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 06:57:34 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. Message-ID: <01C4C7BB.B8E76240.shovland@mindspring.com> The Democrats and other losing parties don't understand what the Republicans understand very well: you must appeal to basic emotions. Progressive causes can be connected to those emotions, but we haven't seen much of it yet. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:15 AM To: paleo Subject: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack, or count himself lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to arouse confidence in his orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of convictions, of enthusiasm, or self-respect, it is cruelly hard? The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second or third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. --H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920 <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 11 15:34:02 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:34:02 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Black Orchid Message-ID: <01C4C7C0.D1A53550.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 117145 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 11 17:20:03 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:20:03 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Broward (voting) machines count backward Message-ID: <01C4C7CF.A0FCB450.shovland@mindspring.com> Broward machines count backward By Eliot Kleinberg Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Friday, November 05, 2004 FORT LAUDERDALE - It had to happen. Things were just going too smoothly. Early Thursday, as Broward County elections officials wrapped up after a long day of canvassing votes, something unusual caught their eye. Tallies should go up as more votes are counted. That's simple math. But in some races, the numbers had gone . . . down. Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward. Why a voting system would be designed to count backward was a mystery to Broward County Mayor Ilene Lieberman. She was on the phone late Wednesday with Omaha-based Elections Systems and Software. Bad numbers showed up only in running tallies through the day, not the final one. Final tallies were reached by cross-checking machine totals, and officials are confident they are accurate. The glitch affected only the 97,434 absentee ballots, Broward Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes said. All were placed in their own precincts and optical scanners totaled votes, which were then fed to a main computer. That's where the counting problems surfaced. They affected only votes for constitutional amendments 4 through 8, because they were on the only page that was exactly the same on all county absentee ballots. The same software is used in Martin and Miami-Dade counties; Palm Beach and St. Lucie counties use different companies. The problem cropped up in the 2002 election. Lieberman said ES&S told her it had sent software upgrades to the Florida Secretary of State's office, but that the office kept rejecting the software. The state said that's not true. Broward elections officials said they had thought the problem was fixed. Secretary of State spokeswoman Jenny Nash said all counties using this system had been told that such problems would occur if a precinct is set up in a way that would allow votes to get above 32,000. She said Broward should have split the absentee ballots into four separate precincts to avoid that and that a Broward elections employee since has admitted to not doing that. But Lieberman said later, "No election employee has come to the canvassing board and made the statements that Jenny Nash said occurred." Late Thursday, ES&S issued a statement reiterating that it learned of the problems in 2002 and said the software upgrades would be submitted to Hood's office next year. The company was working with the counties it serves to make sure ballots don't exceed capacity and said no other counties reported similar problems. "While the county bears the ultimate responsibility for programming the ballot and structuring the precincts, we . . . regret any confusion the discrepancy in early vote totals has caused," the statement said. After several calls to the company during the day were not returned, an ES&S spokeswoman said late Thursday she did not know whether ES&S contacted the secretary of state two years ago or whether the software is designed to count backward. While the problem surfaced two years ago, it was under a different Br oward elections supervisor and a different secretary of state. Snipes said she had not known about the 2002 snafu. Later, Lieberman said, "I am not passing judgments and I'm not pointing a finger." But she said that if ES&S is found to be at fault, actions might include penalizing ES&S or even defaulting on its contract. From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 11 17:23:25 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:23:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Glitch gave Bush extra votes in Ohio Message-ID: <01C4C7D0.192051D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Friday, November 5, 2004 Posted: 4:15 PM EST (2115 GMT) COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said. Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct, Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told The Columbus Dispatch. State and county election officials did not immediately respond to requests by The Associated Press for more details about the voting system and its vendor, and whether the error, if repeated elsewhere in Ohio, could have affected the outcome. Bush won the state by more than 136,000 votes, according to unofficial results, and Kerry conceded the election on Wednesday after acknowledging that 155,000 provisional ballots yet to be counted in Ohio would not change the result. (Full Ohio results) The Secretary of State's Office said Friday it could not revise Bush's total until the county reported the error. The Ohio glitch is among a handful of computer troubles that have emerged since Tuesday's elections. (Touchscreen voting troubles reported) In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost because officials mistakenly believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did. And in San Francisco, a malfunction with custom voting software could delay efforts to declare the winners of four races for county supervisor. In the Ohio precinct in question, the votes are recorded onto a cartridge. On one of the three machines at that precinct, a malfunction occurred in the recording process, Damschroder said. He could not explain how the malfunction occurred. Damschroder said people who had seen poll results on the election board's Web site called to point out the discrepancy. The error would have been discovered when the official count for the election is performed later this month, he said. The reader also recorded zero votes in a county commissioner race on the machine. Workers checked the cartridge against memory banks in the voting machine and each showed that 115 people voted for Bush on that machine. With the other machines, the total for Bush in the precinct added up to 365 votes. Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a glitch occurred with software designed for the city's new "ranked-choice voting," in which voters list their top three choices for municipal offices. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes outright, voters' second and third-place preferences are then distributed among candidates who weren't eliminated in the first round. (E-vote goes smoothly, but experts skeptical) When the San Francisco Department of Elections tried a test run on Wednesday of the program that does the redistribution, some of the votes didn't get counted and skewed the results, director John Arntz said. "All the information is there," Arntz said. "It's just not arriving the way it was supposed to." A technician from the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the problem. From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Fri Nov 12 00:12:46 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:12:46 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] White House will be adorned by a downright moron. In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041111091230.01a80450@mail.earthlink.net> References: <6.1.2.0.0.20041111091230.01a80450@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4193FFFE.5080802@solution-consulting.com> Karen, et al.: Actually, this idea that the masses want a dunce is a rather old idea, and fortunately one that has not proven itself. I think we can agree that our presidents have been remarkable each in his own way, and criticism of the current one is short-sighted. Mencken was a clever writer, but not necessarily wise. I say that at the considerable risk of alienating Frank Foreman, a man of huge intellect. Take a look at "Wisdom of Crowds" by Surowicki. He demonstrates that aggregate wisdom is remarkably accurate. That being said, it may well be that either would have made a fairly good president, but perhaps it will turn out that Bush will be somewhat better (1% or 2% better??). The following is from: http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/ "No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -H. L. Mencken H. L. Mencken was wrong. In this endlessly fascinating book, New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea that has profound implications: large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant--better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future. This seemingly counterintuitive notion has endless and major ramifications for how businesses operate, how knowledge is advanced, how economies are (or should be) organized and how we live our daily lives. With seemingly boundless erudition and in delightfully clear prose, Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, economic behaviorism, artificial intelligence, military history and political theory to show just how this principle operates in the real world. From a broader perspective, I recommend we look at Appreciative Inquiry as a model for dealing with this election. AI involves a way of capturing the wisdom of large groups and transmuting those groups by coordinated committed action. Check out: http://appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/ and click on the introduction button. I personally was touched by Kerry's appeal to come together now (quite a change for me, since I had an irrational and embarassing dislike for the man) and am going to do all I can to promote that. I believe passionately in the power of positive visions, and I believe in the transformational possibilities of seeing our leaders appreciatively. I ask you to join me in that. Lynn Johnson Salt Lake City K.E. wrote: > > When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face > men of > sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they > are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any > save the > most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of > emotion, and > whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So > confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack, or count > himself > lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to arouse confidence in his > orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of convictions, of > enthusiasm, > or self-respect, it is cruelly hard... > > The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small > electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through, > carrying > even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the > field is > nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second or third > hand, and > the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the > odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the most devious and mediocre > -- > the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a > virtual vacuum. > > The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is > perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul > of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious > day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at > last, and the > White House will be adorned by a downright moron. > > > --H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920 > > > > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > The Educational CyberPlayGround > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ > > National Children's Folksong Repository > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html > > Hot List of Schools Online and > Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html > > 7 Hot Site Awards > New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, > USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty > <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Fri Nov 12 02:49:02 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:49:02 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] the resurrection of Sigmund Freud Message-ID: <1e2.2ed66ec5.2ec57e9e@aol.com> >From an email conversation with David Smith: David: In the realpolitik of academe, at least in the USA, to be associated with psychoanalysis in any way is often the kiss of death. The name 'Freud' still has the power to arouse irrational hatered. hb: I know and I've shunned Freud and psychoanalysis along with everyone else. But we've hit a turning point. Several years ago, someone with money set up a group that merges psychoanalysis with neurobiology in New York. He managed to lure in two very important figures--Jaak Panksepp and Walter Freeman. He apparently did it by paying their expenses to come to NY for one meeting per month. Four of the group members, Jaak, Walter, Ziad Nahas, a neural-imaging and trascranial magnetic stimulation expert, and David Pincus, a psychotherapist with the sort of barrier-leaping interest you and I share, took advantage of these trips to come out to the Bloom Brownstone one by one and meet with me. Then, roughly a year ago, The Scientific American gave its blessing to the new merger of psychoanalysis and neurobiology by writing a reappraisal of Freud. The reappraisal said that neurobiology has done what Freud wanted to do when he still aimed at a career in the neurobiology of his day. Freud had seen things in the mind that neurobiologists were now confirming. You are much more involved in the academic community than I am. But, as I said before, I think that psychoanalysis is making a comeback. And so is Siggy Freud. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From guavaberry at earthlink.net Fri Nov 12 15:29:26 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for psychic teleportation Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041112102825.01aaec80@mail.earthlink.net> from another list i'm on karen Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for psychic teleportation USA Today article: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2004/11/usat110504.html "It is in large part crackpot physics," says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University, author of The Physics of Star Trek, a book detailing the physical limits that prevent teleportation. He describes the Air Force report as "some things adapted from reasonable theoretical studies, and other things from nonsensical ones." --- http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf Report date: 25-11-2003 Sponsor: Air Force Research Laboratory (AFMC) 10 E. Saturn Blvd. Edwards AFB CA 93524-7680 The concept of teleportation was originally developed during the Golden Age of 20 century science fiction literature by writers in need of a form of instantaneous disembodied transportation technology to support the plots of their stories. Teleportation has appeared in such SciFi literature classics as Algis Budry's Rogue Moon (Gold Medal Books, 1960), A. E. van Vogt's World of Null-A (Astounding Science Fiction, August 1945), and George Langelaan's The Fly (Playboy Magazine, June 1957). The Playboy Magazine short story led to a cottage industry of popular films decrying the horrors of scientific technology that exceeded mankind's wisdom: The Fly (1958), Return of the Fly (1959), Curse of the Fly (1965), The Fly (a 1986 remake), and The Fly II (1989). The teleportation concept has also appeared in episodes of popular television SciFi anthology series such as The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits. But the most widely recognized pop-culture awareness of the teleportation concept began with the numerous Star Trek television and theatrical movie series of the past 39 years (beginning in 1964 with the first TV series pilot episode, The Cage), which are now an international entertainment and product franchise that was originally spawned by the late genius television writer-producer Gene Roddenberry. Because of Star Trek everyone in the world is familiar with the "transporter" device, which is used to teleport personnel and material from starship to starship or from ship to planet and vice versa at the speed of light. People or inanimate objects would be positioned on the transporter pad and become completely disintegrated by a beam with their atoms being patterned in a computer buffer and later converted into a beam that is directed toward the destination, and then reintegrated back into their original form (all without error!). "Beam me up, Scotty" is a familiar automobile bumper sticker or cry of exasperation that were popularly adopted from the series... This study was tasked with the purpose of collecting information describing the teleportation of material objects, providing a description of teleportation as it occurs in physics, its theoretical and experimental status, and a projection of potential applications. The study also consisted of a search for teleportation phenomena occurring naturally or under laboratory conditions that can be assembled into a model describing the conditions required to accomplish the transfer of objects... The author proposes an additional model for teleportation that is based on a combination of the experimental results from the previous government studies and advanced physics concepts. Numerous recommendations outlining proposals for further theoretical and experimental studies are given in the report. The report also includes an extensive teleportation bibliography... <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Nov 12 16:58:56 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:58:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The evil of Iraq Message-ID: <01C4C895.D8B55020.shovland@mindspring.com> The evil of Iraq Deepens With every bullet fired With every bomb dropped The gnashing of teeth and The weeping of mothers Grows every day Without ceasing The conqueror presses forward Puzzled At the hatred that Envelops him All perspective lost And yet He does not stop Another generation Soul-scarred Not knowing why Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Nov 12 19:14:46 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:14:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] crowds In-Reply-To: <200411121900.iACJ07005635@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041112191446.53203.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com> >>Actually, this idea that the masses want a dunce is a rather old idea, and fortunately one that has not proven itself.<< --I don't think people consciously WANT a vacant leader, but the nature of the system is to elevate those upon whom people can project their ideals. In small groups, a leader may in fact accurately reflect the spirit of the group, but in groups of millions, leaders tend to be well-marketed, rather than chosen for their ability to tap into the collective vision. Political correctness also becomes a factor, because even a small group can derail a campaign by attacking the candidate (swiftvets, for example). Because of this, Republicans who are moderate or liberal on social values must keep silent to some degree, or face the wrath of social conservatives. This may do a great deal of damage to the GOP. They can't win without the conservative Christian vote, and Bush has set the bar. Now, a Republican social moderate like Giuliani or Schwarzenegger, normally highly desirable to the GOP, could suffer because next to Bush, they just don't have the conservative Christian vibe nailed. As an independent, I am willing to support Republicans who stand up to the religious right and against political correctness. It's one thing to be friendly to Christian voters, another thing to be silenced out of fear that groups like Dobson's will pour cash into a state to defeat a socially moderate Republican. Political correctness on the Left has also been noted, but it tends to happen without comment on the Right. Religious nationalism, more than any other social movement, tends to force politicians into a box. >>Take a look at "Wisdom of Crowds" by Surowicki. He demonstrates that aggregate wisdom is remarkably accurate.<< --Only when there is a mechanism which accurately unfolds the intelligence of the group. When groups are forced to pick sides, and there are only two sides, things tend to get distorted quite a bit. The lowest common denominator is elevated, rather than those who truly reflect the genius of the crowd. This is also why Clinton and Bush could both get high approval ratings. It's not that the crowd is schizophrenic. There's a natural pendulum swing from liberal to conservative and back again, due to each side going to excess when it has its turn. In individuals, that swing is also seen, but individuals have more ability to shift in a coherent, graceful way, as opposed to the slamming between extremes we see in politics. One positive for our culture: unlike many other cultures, liberals and conservatives in our society tend to have friends and family on the other side. Which means that even when an election is highly polarized, there is a natural tendency for family and friendship to moderate the extremes and prevent violence. In many parts of the world, different religious, racial and political groups have no contact with those who are different, and violence is much more likely. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Nov 12 19:20:20 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:20:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] psychology In-Reply-To: <200411121900.iACJ07005635@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041112192020.54348.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com> >>But, as I said before, I think that psychoanalysis is making a comeback. And so is Siggy Freud.<< --Possibly true. In arguments over whether some "patriarch" (Freud, Jung, etc) is good or evil, a lot of information goes ignored, and eventually the information wants to be heard. There is a huge amount of wisdom in psychology, and when merged with neurology it has staying power. At the moment there is still a popular feeling that psychology is for "elites". Which is odd, because so many of the people who loudly denounce "elites" make elitist statements themselves. Projection is rampant, and it would be nice if people understood how it works. And, regardless of what people think of psychology, it is a major influence on media, including politics. If the public doesn't learn how their minds work, someone else will, and they'll use that leverage for profit. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Nov 12 21:30:22 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:30:22 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] psychology Message-ID: <01C4C8BB.C39E5670.shovland@mindspring.com> Whether we like it or not, we need to recognize the Republicans are very good at pressing the buttons of the masses, and the Democrats don't seem to know that there are buttons. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:20 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] psychology >>But, as I said before, I think that psychoanalysis is making a comeback. And so is Siggy Freud.<< --Possibly true. In arguments over whether some "patriarch" (Freud, Jung, etc) is good or evil, a lot of information goes ignored, and eventually the information wants to be heard. There is a huge amount of wisdom in psychology, and when merged with neurology it has staying power. At the moment there is still a popular feeling that psychology is for "elites". Which is odd, because so many of the people who loudly denounce "elites" make elitist statements themselves. Projection is rampant, and it would be nice if people understood how it works. And, regardless of what people think of psychology, it is a major influence on media, including politics. If the public doesn't learn how their minds work, someone else will, and they'll use that leverage for profit. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Nov 12 21:48:08 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:48:08 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] psychology References: <01C4C8BB.C39E5670.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <004b01c4c901$4dd63250$e003f604@S0027397558> The Republicans are also very good at campaigning in Exurbia, that never-never land where Wal-Mart is supreme and communities are gated. Karl Rove is a plenty savvy pal to have on your team. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:30 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] psychology > Whether we like it or not, we need to > recognize the Republicans are very > good at pressing the buttons of the > masses, and the Democrats don't > seem to know that there are buttons. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:20 AM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] psychology > > >>>But, as I > said before, I think that psychoanalysis is > making a comeback. And so is Siggy Freud.<< > > --Possibly true. In arguments over whether some > "patriarch" (Freud, Jung, etc) is good or evil, a lot > of information goes ignored, and eventually the > information wants to be heard. There is a huge amount > of wisdom in psychology, and when merged with > neurology it has staying power. > > At the moment there is still a popular feeling that > psychology is for "elites". Which is odd, because so > many of the people who loudly denounce "elites" make > elitist statements themselves. Projection is rampant, > and it would be nice if people understood how it > works. And, regardless of what people think of > psychology, it is a major influence on media, > including politics. If the public doesn't learn how > their minds work, someone else will, and they'll use > that leverage for profit. > > Michael > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. > www.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From guavaberry at earthlink.net Sat Nov 13 02:09:42 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:09:42 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] more on Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for psychic teleportation Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041112210850.01c4aec0@mail.earthlink.net> From the other list i'm on ke From: "David P. Reed" Date: November 12, 2004 2:54:42 PM EST Subject: Re: [IP] Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for psychic teleportation Curious iconoclast that I am, I decided to read the actual AF report concerning teleportation. I learned 2 things. 1) the USA Today article was written by someone who obviously did not read the report. (Did Declan?) In particular the sentence "The report calls for $7.5 million to conduct psychic teleportation experiments" is completely inaccurate, distorting the actual words, probably because of an FAS agenda. The report analyzes the costs for a set of experiments, 90+% of which is to be focused on NON-psychic teleportation experiments - experiments based on plausible, current physical theories, which just happen to be a bit "out there". It does not "call for" money at all - merely recommending how one might take the next step in testing various physical approaches to engineering teleportation. Reminds me of Willy Ley telling us how we might travel to the moon. 2) The attempt by the author to describe the theories of highly regarded physics professors (such as Kip Thorne of Caltech) seems honest and does not seem to me to substantially misrepresent their work, those parts of which I have read. I've seen some ideas that were called absurd (such as Continental Drift, which is now accepted, and non-biological origins of some petroleum) turn out to be true after many years of disrepute, and other very plausible theories held by senior people (inheritance of acquired characteristics) turn out to be largely false. Argument from prestigious authority is a weak way to establish scientific truth, as I think we all know. It saddens me that the FAS responds to such publications by putting out press releases to USA Today, rather than pursuing the usual scientific channels for challenge. Is the FAS a part of science, or merely a political lobbying organization? Who is Stephen Aftergood? On what basis is he an expert in wormholes, for example? Now it may be that there is a larger context I don't understand. For example, there may be politicians using the report to justify investing in such projects. If true, that activity should be discussed and judged, and I certainly think that other scientists should review the report before funding such a hypothetical plan. From n.j.c.bannan at reading.ac.uk Sat Nov 13 13:08:45 2004 From: n.j.c.bannan at reading.ac.uk (Nicholas Bannan) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:08:45 -0000 Subject: [Paleopsych] 'Science' review of recent Reading conference Message-ID: <003101c4c981$e89d3ec0$6882e186@.rdg.ac.uk> I thought colleagues might like to see this. Nicholas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: music.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 287561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Nov 13 20:52:25 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:52:25 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] more on Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for psychic teleportation In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041112210850.01c4aec0@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041113154743.023b9de0@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:09 PM 11/12/2004 -0500, K.E. wrote: > From the other list i'm on > >ke > > > >From: "David P. Reed" >Date: November 12, 2004 2:54:42 PM EST >Subject: Re: [IP] Tax $$$ at work: Air Force report wants $7.5 million for >psychic teleportation > >Curious iconoclast that I am, I decided to read the actual AF report >concerning teleportation. > >I learned 2 things. > >1) the USA Today article was written by someone who obviously did not read >the report. (Did Declan?) In particular the sentence "The report calls >for $7.5 million to conduct psychic teleportation experiments" is >completely inaccurate, distorting the actual words, probably because of an >FAS agenda. The report analyzes the costs for a set of experiments, 90+% >of which is to be focused on NON-psychic teleportation experiments - >experiments based on plausible, current physical theories, which just >happen to be a bit "out there". It does not "call for" money at all - >merely recommending how one might take the next step in testing various >physical approaches to engineering teleportation. Reminds me of Willy >Ley telling us how we might travel to the moon. > >2) The attempt by the author to describe the theories of highly regarded >physics professors (such as Kip Thorne of Caltech) seems honest and does >not seem to me to substantially misrepresent their work, those parts of >which I have read. > >I've seen some ideas that were called absurd (such as Continental Drift, >which is now accepted, and non-biological origins of some petroleum) turn >out to be true after many years of disrepute, and other very plausible >theories held by senior people (inheritance of acquired characteristics) >turn out to be largely false. Argument from prestigious authority is a >weak way to establish scientific truth, as I think we all know. I did not read the report. But I certainly know about people (not in FAS especially) who try to become famous or powerful or to seek divine favor by acting as Grand Inquisitors, by trying to create purges of all heretics and nonbelievers. it is utterly sad. reminds me of Spengler and his comments about decay of aging cultures which start to forget their original inspiration. The spirit of the scientific method is not well reflected in the New Science which might better be called New Theology. Not knowing this Air Force project... I have no idea whether the money is well spent. But I seriously doubt there is more being wasted here than, say, with PEM fuel cells designed for cars carrying cryogenic hydrogen around. It would be more honest to debunk Schwartzenegger than to debunk these small fry. But some folks realize it's easier to get ahead by singling out the weak and the vulnerable ... >It saddens me that the FAS responds to such publications by putting out >press releases to USA Today, rather than pursuing the usual scientific >channels for challenge. Is the FAS a part of science, or merely a >political lobbying organization? Who is Stephen Aftergood? On what basis >is he an expert in wormholes, for example? > >Now it may be that there is a larger context I don't understand. For >example, there may be politicians using the report to justify investing in >such projects. If true, that activity should be discussed and judged, >and I certainly think that other scientists should review the report >before funding such a hypothetical plan. > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From checker at panix.com Sun Nov 14 17:17:04 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:17:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: White House will be adorned by a downright moron. In-Reply-To: <6bba4a66bb79b9.6bb79b96bba4a6@gwu.edu> References: <6bba4a66bb79b9.6bb79b96bba4a6@gwu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for your idea, Rebecca, but perhaps we might use a more recent conception of tyrant than Plato's, to wit. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. This was the third George of England, while you are referring to the third George of the United States. In fact, the first third George did not do these things himself, rather his entire government did. I'd speak of four aspects of a tyrant: personal rule, centralized power, unjust power (see the examples above), and arbitrary power. I don't think either third George exercised much in the way of personal power. England, in 1776, was centralized. In fact, what we call the common law is as much the law that became, over many centuries, *common* to all the regions of England as the distinction between the accretion of judicial decisions, as opposed to *canon* law on the European continent. It's illuminating to read in Gabriel Garcia Manquez' One Hundred Years of Solitude that the Liberals in Latin America favored a federalist decentralization of power, as of course our Founding Fathers did, though the Constitution they proposed in 1787 actually increased the authority of the central government but only by a bit. (This bit was too much for the so-called Anti-Federalists.) I asked a Hamilton scholar if Hamilton ever imagined a national government that would tax more than 2% of GDP, and he said no. Today, power in this country is greatly concentrated in the central government, though less so than in most of the rest of the world. Federal government are few. There's also Canada, Germany, Australia, Serbia (but not Croatia: Yugoslavia was, officially, federalist), a few others. I should make a list. This centralization was inherited by Bush. He did not much increase it during his first term, except as pertains to the National Security State. It was during the Clinton administration that a huge number of crimes became national for the first time. I recall reading that they were more than doubled. Chances are that, on the whole, power will be handed back to the states during the next four years. Unjust laws: again, these were inherited by Bush. Most laws affecting personal relationships (crime, marriage, divorce, inheritance, forming corporations) are done at the state level, while laws affecting businesses, including those of corporations, have a huge federal component. These laws restrict freedom of contract. Whereas employees can leave jobs at will, corporations cannot fire at will. Employment contracts, which is what JOBS are, are one-sidedly in favor of employees. You may or may not think that it is the *central* government's proper job to enforce anti-discrimination laws in hiring and firing (for those groups protected by these laws), but it is a restriction on freedom of contract. It benefits the protected groups at the expense of unprotected groups. Other laws restricting employers from entering into contracts with employees, also benefit *certain* employees at the expense of others. What they do not, and cannot, do is confer net benefits all around. The consequence is that wages will fall the more freedom of contract is restricted. (Consider the so-called forced employer contribution to Social Security, something else employers are forbidden to contract out of: there is no free lunch here, for employers would have simply paid those contributions to their employees in the form of higher salaries.) There is enough competition to ensure this result. There's a deadweight loss from all these laws, as rent-seeking groups expend resources to get them enacted and other groups expend resources resisting them. Furthermore, they are inefficient: unless I really want to pay into Social Security voluntarily, I am worse off being forces to do this. Anyone wanting to say these laws are just should roll out his theory of justice. I think there will be a minor reduction of these unjust laws under Republicans, since they do care about injustices to businesses. Arbitrary laws: Too many of them will remain, esp. RICO and civil forfeiture laws, of more recent vintage, and antitrust laws that go back more than a century, though we can expect a minor reduction in the sweep of antitrust laws during the next four years. These laws are so complex that no one understands what they mean: if a business charges more than his competitors, it is guilty of monopoly exploitation. If it charges less, it is guilty of intent to monopolize by driving its competitors out of business. If it charges the same, it is guilty of price fixing! Please read the charges against George III again and decide whether we are already there. Whether we are going further into tyranny, please consider also unjust and arbitrary laws against individuals who get together to establish businesses. ----------- Lynn, I don't claim to have a "huge" intellect. It's just that I am insatiably curious and have picked up a superficial knowledge in a wide variety of areas. More than anything else, I constantly question whether what I pick up is knowledge. The older I get, the less I realize I knew. The Web is wonderful, since I can often quickly find that some view I find out about is just one of many, many views. I am perpetually asking why there is or isn't a convergence of opinion on any variety of things. Very often, that's the question to ask, not what is the exact truth in the matter. On 2004-11-11, Rebecca Warburton opined [message unchanged below]: > Hi, all, > I'm with Karen - but will tweak "moron" to "tyrant" > - often one and the same. I reference Plato's > _Republic_, Bk 8 in which five forms of government > are discussed as well as what causes one to evolve > into another. The dichotomy that Bush has > established in America is leading us away from, if > not already to, tyranny (that which follows > democracy gone awry). Then one might read on to Bk > IX in which the tyrant is described - the enemy of > virtue and justice. Perhaps Bush won by numbers of > votes, but please, he lost long ago as a speciman of > humanity - stupid and evil together can in no way > equal "better." > > Rebecca > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Premise Checker > Date: Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:19 pm > Subject: White House will be adorned by a downright > moron. > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:12:46 -0700 >> From: "Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D." > >> Reply-To: The new improved paleopsych list > >> To: The new improved paleopsych list > >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] White House will be > adorned by a >> downright moron. >> >> Karen, et al.: >> >> Actually, this idea that the masses want a dunce > is a rather old idea, >> and fortunately one that has not proven itself. I > think we can agree >> that our presidents have been remarkable each in > his own way, and >> criticism of the current one is short-sighted. > Mencken was a clever >> writer, but not necessarily wise. I say that at > the considerable >> risk of >> alienating Frank Foreman, a man of huge intellect. >> Take a look at "Wisdom of Crowds" by > Surowicki. He >> demonstrates that >> aggregate wisdom is remarkably accurate. That > being said, it may >> well be >> that either would have made a fairly good > president, but perhaps >> it will >> turn out that Bush will be somewhat better (1% or > 2% better??). >> The following is from: >> http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/ >> "No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever > lost money by >> underestimating the intelligence of the great > masses of the plain >> people."-H. L. Mencken >> >> H. L. Mencken was wrong. >> >> In this endlessly fascinating book, New Yorker > columnist James >> Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea that > has profound >> implications: large groups of people are smarter > than an elite >> few, no >> matter how brilliant--better at solving problems, > fostering >> innovation,coming to wise decisions, even > predicting the future. >> >> This seemingly counterintuitive notion has endless > and major >> ramifications for how businesses operate, how > knowledge is >> advanced, how >> economies are (or should be) organized and how we > live our daily >> lives.With seemingly boundless erudition and in > delightfully clear >> prose,Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse > as popular culture, >> psychology, ant biology, economic behaviorism, > artificial >> intelligence,military history and political theory > to show just >> how this principle >> operates in the real world. >> >> >> From a broader perspective, I recommend we > look at Appreciative >> Inquiry as a model for dealing with this election. > AI involves a >> way of >> capturing the wisdom of large groups and > transmuting those groups by >> coordinated committed action. Check out: >> http://appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/ >> and click on the introduction button. >> >> I personally was touched by Kerry's appeal to come > together now >> (quite a >> change for me, since I had an irrational and > embarassing dislike >> for the >> man) and am going to do all I can to promote that. > I believe >> passionately in the power of positive visions, and > I believe in the >> transformational possibilities of seeing our leaders >> appreciatively. I >> ask you to join me in that. >> >> Lynn Johnson >> Salt Lake City >> >> K.E. wrote: >> >>> >>> When a candidate for public office faces the > voters he does not face >>> men of >>> sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief > distinguishing mark is >> that they >>> are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even > of comprehending any >>> save the >>> most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is > done in terms of >>> emotion, and >>> whose dominant emotion is dread of what they > cannot understand. So >>> confronted, the candidate must either bark with > the pack, or count >>> himself >>> lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to > arouse confidence >> in his >>> orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of > convictions, of >>> enthusiasm, >>> or self-respect, it is cruelly hard... >>> >>> The larger the mob, the harder the test. In > small areas, before >> small> electorates, a first rate man occasionally > fights his way >> through,> carrying >>> even a mob with him by the force of his > personality. But when the >>> field is >>> nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly > at second or third >>> hand, and >>> the force of personality cannot so readily make > itself felt, >> then all the >>> odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the > most devious and >> mediocre> -- >>> the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion > that his mind >> is a >>> virtual vacuum. >>> >>> The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to > such men. As >> democracy is >>> perfected, the office represents, more and more > closely, the >> inner soul >>> of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On > some great and >> glorious> day the plain folks of the land will > reach their hearts >> desire at >>> last, and the >>> White House will be adorned by a downright moron. >>> >>> >>> --H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July > 26, 1920 >>> >>> >>> >>> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>> The Educational CyberPlayGround >>> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ >>> >>> National Children's Folksong Repository >>> > http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html >>> >>> Hot List of Schools Online and >>> Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters >>> http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html >>> >>> 7 Hot Site Awards >>> New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, >>> USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top > Fifty >>> <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >> > > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Nov 14 21:07:41 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:07:41 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: White House will be adorned by a downright moron. In-Reply-To: References: <6bba4a66bb79b9.6bb79b96bba4a6@gwu.edu> Message-ID: <4197C91D.7050502@solution-consulting.com> Frank, I personally see you as having a daunting intellect, and know you are a fan of Mencken's so my Surowiecki reference ran the risk of offending you. I greatly enjoy your posts to the list and very frequently find pearls of great price among them. Respectfully, Lynn Premise Checker wrote: -snip- Lynn, I don't claim to have a "huge" intellect. It's just that I am insatiably curious and have picked up a superficial knowledge in a wide variety of areas. More than anything else, I constantly question whether what I pick up is knowledge. The older I get, the less I realize I knew. The Web is wonderful, since I can often quickly find that some view I find out about is just one of many, many views. I am perpetually asking why there is or isn't a convergence of opinion on any variety of things. Very often, that's the question to ask, not what is the exact truth in the matter. From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 15 20:02:19 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:02:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] pressing buttons In-Reply-To: <200411131900.iADJ0W004657@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041115200219.66709.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> >>Whether we like it or not, we need to recognize the Republicans are very good at pressing the buttons of the masses, and the Democrats don't seem to know that there are buttons.<< --I think there needs to be some way to teach the public about media psychology, so that no political entity can get away with blatant manipulation. The current political paradigm is to get someone onto whom the public can project a feel-good image, and that person may be clueless or disconnected from the process which elevates him to office. As long as he seems "comfortable in his skin" the process behind the candidate can remain veiled. And mistrust of the system is channeled into greater mistrust of the opponent, making use of the contrast principle to cast a glow of integrity on a candidate who might not be able to stand on results alone. This documentary is good: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/view/ Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 15 20:08:04 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:08:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Distribution of power parallels distribution of income? Message-ID: <01C4CB0B.C330A380.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 16 17:25:35 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:25:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked Message-ID: <01C4CBBE.3B32DB70.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm by Thom Hartmann When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat. "It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me. And some believe evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004. The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen Kathy Dopp compiled the official state information into a table, available at , and noticed something startling. Also See: Florida Secretary of State Presidential Results by County 11/02/2004 (.pdf) Florida Secretary of State County Registration by Party 2/9/2004 (.pdf) While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios largely matched the Kerry/Bush vote, in Florida's counties using results from optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking - the results seem to contain substantial anomalies. In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry. In Dixie County, with 9,676 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush. The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush. Yet in the touch-screen counties, where investigators may have been more vigorously looking for such anomalies, high percentages of registered Democrats generally equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry. (I had earlier reported that county size was a variable - this turns out not to be the case. Just the use of touch-screens versus optical scanners.) More visual analysis of the results can be seen at http://us together.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm , and www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm . Note the trend line - the only variable that determines a swing toward Bush was the use of optical scan machines. One possible explanation for this is the "Dixiecrat" theory, that in Florida white voters (particularly the rural ones) have been registered as Democrats for years, but voting Republican since Reagan. Looking at the 2000 statistics, also available on Dopp's site, there are similar anomalies, although the trends are not as strong as in 2004. But some suggest the 2000 election may have been questionable in Florida, too. One of the people involved in Dopp's analysis noted that it may be possible to determine the validity of the "rural Democrat" theory by comparing Florida's white rural counties to those of Pennsylvania, another swing state but one that went for Kerry, as the exit polls there predicted. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania analysis, available at , doesn't show the same kind of swings as does Florida, lending credence to the possibility of problems in Florida. Even more significantly, Dopp had first run the analysis while filtering out smaller (rural) counties, and still found that the only variable that accounted for a swing toward Republican voting was the use of optical-scan machines, whereas counties with touch-screen machines generally didn't swing - regardless of size. Others offer similar insights, based on other data. A professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, noted that in Florida the vote to raise the minimum wage was approved by 72%, although Kerry got 48%. "The correlation between voting for the minimum wage increase and voting for Kerry isn't likely to be perfect," he noted, "but one would normally expect that the gap - of 1.5 million votes - to be far smaller than it was." While all of this may or may not be evidence of vote tampering, it again brings the nation back to the question of why several states using electronic voting machines or scanners programmed by private, for-profit corporations and often connected to modems produced votes inconsistent with exit poll numbers. Those exit poll results have been a problem for reporters ever since Election Day. Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report. But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal states. Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged. Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill , the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points. "Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state." He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points." Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush. How could this happen? On the CNBC TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris, the Seattle grandmother who started www.blackboxvoting.org from her living room. Bev pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other than hand counts, only done in odd places like small towns in Vermont), the real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that simply record a touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central tabulator" machine. That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC. "In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on national television, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once?" Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer." "So," Dean said, "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central tabulator?" Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out how Diebold uses a program called GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the central tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that was sitting between them loaded with Diebold's software. Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the results of a test election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and waited a moment while the PC "adds up all the votes from all the various precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had 1000 votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning. "Of course, you can't tamper with this software," Harris noted. Diebold wrote a pretty good program. But, it's running on a Windows PC. So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the "My Computer" icon, choose "Local Disk C:," open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder "LocalDB" which, Harris noted, "stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes." Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled "Central Tabulator Votes," which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel. In the "Sum of the Candidates" row of numbers, she found that in one precinct Dean had received 800 votes and Lex Luthor had gotten 400. "Let's just flip those," Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. "And," she added magnanimously, "let's give 100 votes to Tiger." They closed the database, went back into the official GEMS software "the legitimate way, you're the county supervisor and you're checking on the progress of your election." As the screen displayed the official voter tabulation, Harris said, "And you can see now that Howard Dean has only 500 votes, Lex Luthor has 900, and Tiger Woods has 100." Dean, the winner, was now the loser. Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, "We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds." On live national television. (You can see the clip on www.votergate.tv .) And they had left no tracks whatsoever, Harris said, noting that it would be nearly impossible for the election software - or a County election official - to know that the vote database had been altered. Which brings us back to Morris and those pesky exit polls that had Karen Hughes telling George W. Bush that he'd lost the election in a landslide. Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotage" to cause people in the western states to not bother voting for Bush, since the networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the networks didn't do that, and had never intended to. According to congressional candidate Fisher, it makes far more sense that the exit polls were right - they weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote itself was hacked. And not only for the presidential candidate - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in the most-hacked swing states. So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed. But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play." Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: AGrin at aol.com [SMTP:AGrin at aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:15 AM To: Maryjanowitz at aol.com Subject: Election Map To help us make sense of it all... http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ - Alan << File: ATT00000.html >> From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Nov 16 22:47:43 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] entropy, chaos and four impossible things before breakfast In-Reply-To: <1e2.2ed66ec5.2ec57e9e@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041116174332.03049e88@incoming.verizon.net> Hi, Folks! You have occasionally said things about entropy and life and chaos and energy. So someone might be amused by all-in-one heresy... http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0411384 Best, Paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 16 23:17:14 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:17:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] entropy, chaos and four impossible things before breakfast Message-ID: <01C4CBEF.5AB30340.shovland@mindspring.com> This sounds like fun: "Efforts were made to disprove the possibility of extracting electricity from ambient heat, from another perspective -- but these efforts led only to a new result on the equivalence of classical and quantum statistics," Could you comment briefly on this in layman's terms? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 2:48 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list; kurakin1970 Subject: [Paleopsych] entropy, chaos and four impossible things before breakfast Hi, Folks! You have occasionally said things about entropy and life and chaos and energy. So someone might be amused by all-in-one heresy... http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0411384 Best, Paul << File: ATT00003.html >> << File: ATT00004.txt >> From paul.werbos at verizon.net Wed Nov 17 01:46:29 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:46:29 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] entropy, chaos and four impossible things before breakfast In-Reply-To: <01C4CBEF.5AB30340.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041116203609.0304a8b8@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:17 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Steve Hovland wrote: >This sounds like fun: > >"Efforts were made to disprove the possibility of extracting electricity >from ambient heat, from another perspective -- but these efforts led only >to a new result on the equivalence of classical and quantum statistics," > >Could you comment briefly on this in layman's terms? First, I would urge anyone to be VERY cautious EITHER about believing this is all for real, OR that it is not for real, at this stage. A specific design for a new chip to extract electricity from heat (and thereby cooling things) is discussed in the paper. I have spoken to a lot of people, and tried to find problems, but haven't found a problem yet. But Murphy's Law being what it is -- they could show up tomorrow. Alternatively, it could actually work. And if it works, the implications for technology could be rather interesting. "Everyone knows" that this impossible "according to the Second Law." But the best current papers on the Second Law show that there are loopholes, and it looks to me that this new nanochip would fall squarely in the middle of those loopholes. Yet we will see. As part of trying to prove this couldn't work, I developed some new results on the statistics of fields (which are far trickier than the classical statistics of point particles). Those were very interesting... supporting some ideas of Einstein that most physicists don't take seriously any more. Maybe Einstein was right after all. Einstein believed in the existence of objective reality, like Ayn Rand... but he also believed that time is essentially just another coordinate in the space-time continuum. It is more powerful and more general than the old classical stuff, but it does not rule out electricity from heat in this class of design, so far as I know or so far as anyone else knows whom I have spoken to. Best, Paul >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] >Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 2:48 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list; kurakin1970 >Subject: [Paleopsych] entropy, chaos and four impossible things >before >breakfast > >Hi, Folks! > >You have occasionally said things about entropy and life and >chaos and energy. So someone might be amused by all-in-one heresy... > >http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0411384 > >Best, > > Paul << File: ATT00003.html >> << File: ATT00004.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 17 04:48:11 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:48:11 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] entropy, chaos and four impossible things before breakfast Message-ID: <01C4CC1D.966B5170.shovland@mindspring.com> Thanks Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:46 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] entropy, chaos and four impossible things before breakfast At 03:17 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Steve Hovland wrote: >This sounds like fun: > >"Efforts were made to disprove the possibility of extracting electricity >from ambient heat, from another perspective -- but these efforts led only >to a new result on the equivalence of classical and quantum statistics," > >Could you comment briefly on this in layman's terms? First, I would urge anyone to be VERY cautious EITHER about believing this is all for real, OR that it is not for real, at this stage. A specific design for a new chip to extract electricity from heat (and thereby cooling things) is discussed in the paper. I have spoken to a lot of people, and tried to find problems, but haven't found a problem yet. But Murphy's Law being what it is -- they could show up tomorrow. Alternatively, it could actually work. And if it works, the implications for technology could be rather interesting. "Everyone knows" that this impossible "according to the Second Law." But the best current papers on the Second Law show that there are loopholes, and it looks to me that this new nanochip would fall squarely in the middle of those loopholes. Yet we will see. As part of trying to prove this couldn't work, I developed some new results on the statistics of fields (which are far trickier than the classical statistics of point particles). Those were very interesting... supporting some ideas of Einstein that most physicists don't take seriously any more. Maybe Einstein was right after all. Einstein believed in the existence of objective reality, like Ayn Rand... but he also believed that time is essentially just another coordinate in the space-time continuum. It is more powerful and more general than the old classical stuff, but it does not rule out electricity from heat in this class of design, so far as I know or so far as anyone else knows whom I have spoken to. Best, Paul >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] >Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 2:48 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list; kurakin1970 >Subject: [Paleopsych] entropy, chaos and four impossible things >before >breakfast > >Hi, Folks! > >You have occasionally said things about entropy and life and >chaos and energy. So someone might be amused by all-in-one heresy... > >http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0411384 > >Best, > > Paul << File: ATT00003.html >> << File: ATT00004.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From guavaberry at earthlink.net Thu Nov 18 02:30:15 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] 'Science' review of recent Reading conference In-Reply-To: <003101c4c981$e89d3ec0$6882e186@.rdg.ac.uk> References: <003101c4c981$e89d3ec0$6882e186@.rdg.ac.uk> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041117212157.04b73b50@mail.earthlink.net> OH MY GOODNESS NICHOLAS this is Fantastic !!! a great article - I loved it. Looks like a fabulous conference thanks for sharing and Hats off to ya!! good on you :-) great work. all my best, karen At 08:08 AM 11/13/2004, you wrote: >I thought colleagues might like to see this. > >Nicholas From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Nov 19 16:32:08 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:32:08 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Blue and Red States on a Global basis Message-ID: <01C4CE12.42801540.shovland@mindspring.com> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 46711 bytes Desc: not available URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Nov 19 19:56:50 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:56:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis References: <01C4CE12.42801540.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <004101c4ce71$ea5b8830$6003f604@S0027397558> Your Global Map depicting countries pro Bush vs. Kerry is fairly disheartening. When was this map drawn? It looks to me as though it is filled with "old information". Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "paleopsych at paleopsych. org (E-mail)" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:32 AM Subject: [Paleopsych] Blue and Red States on a Global basis > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Fri Nov 19 23:13:37 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:13:37 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis In-Reply-To: <004101c4ce71$ea5b8830$6003f604@S0027397558> References: <01C4CE12.42801540.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041119181044.0217c8a0@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:56 AM 11/19/2004 -0800, Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: >Your Global Map depicting countries pro Bush vs. Kerry is fairly >disheartening. >When was this map drawn? It looks to me as though it is filled with "old >information". About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial Times (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. Views of Islam clearly were in the background. My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, and we had some jokes... and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told me there was a new poll just before the election, and then it was only Poland. I didn't ping him for sources. >Gerry Reinhart-Waller >Independent Scholar >http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" >To: "paleopsych at paleopsych. org (E-mail)" >Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:32 AM >Subject: [Paleopsych] Blue and Red States on a Global basis > > >> >> >> > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Fri Nov 19 23:30:04 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:30:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis References: <01C4CE12.42801540.shovland@mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20041119181044.0217c8a0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <020201c4ce8f$b4238b50$6003f604@S0027397558> I would have thought Bush's task after being elected U.S. President was to mold his allies into a common cause. That seems to be what we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. Which of the European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what about Putin..... I do think he's still part of the gameplan. A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the Christmas Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might offer a different profile. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." To: "The new improved paleopsych list" ; "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial > Times > (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in > which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, > and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, > Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land > (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. Views > of Islam clearly were in the background. > My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, > and we had some jokes... > and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told > me there was a new poll just > before the election, and then it was only Poland. I > didn't ping him for sources. > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Nov 19 23:41:54 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:41:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis Message-ID: <01C4CE4E.4C60A6B0.shovland@mindspring.com> After the killing of a wounded, unarmed "insurgent" by a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the Islamic world would reveal an unprecedented level of undying hatred for the US. No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that image. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis I would have thought Bush's task after being elected U.S. President was to mold his allies into a common cause. That seems to be what we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. Which of the European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what about Putin..... I do think he's still part of the gameplan. A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the Christmas Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might offer a different profile. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." To: "The new improved paleopsych list" ; "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial > Times > (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in > which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, > and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, > Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land > (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. Views > of Islam clearly were in the background. > My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, > and we had some jokes... > and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told > me there was a new poll just > before the election, and then it was only Poland. I > didn't ping him for sources. > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From guavaberry at earthlink.net Fri Nov 19 23:44:27 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:44:27 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Educational CyberPlayGround helps researchers Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041119184003.05a1aec0@mail.earthlink.net> EDUCATIONAL CYBERPLAYGROUND HELPS RESEARCHERS Can it be true? Will Libraries become obsolete? Will this shake up Library La La Land? Educational CyberPlayGround explains go to the Search this Site page http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NAV_Search.html Find over 100 more search engines and help that explains how to work with these tricky monsters. "The Old way and the Net Way" http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Internet/search.html What's the deal with Google Scholar? 11/04 Announces Google Scholar allow users "to search specifically for scholarly literature, including peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, preprints, abstracts and technical reports from all broad areas of research." This includes results from the Open WorldCat program, which is particularly important since much of this material isn't available in electronic format yet. It will be even more useful after Google has harvested all 57 million WorldCat records, instead of the 2 million records in the pilot subset. How to Work with GOOGLE and Google Scholar the access and the cloaking - the free and the unfree. http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Internet/search2.html Karen Ellis TO SUBSCRIBE TO NETHAPPENIGS http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> NetHappenings Mailing List http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html copyright Educational CyberPlayGround All rights reserved. http://www.cyberpg.com For information on reproducing items from this newsletter, please visit http://www.edu-cyberpg.com//Community/NHnewsletter.html Internal and External Redistribution of this email needs to contain this copyright information box. Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink USA Today Best Bets For Educators Award, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Nov 20 00:01:31 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:01:31 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis References: <01C4CE4E.4C60A6B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <024401c4ce94$188641b0$6003f604@S0027397558> Killing that insurgent is an isolated incident and does NOT constitute initiating killing fields. One robin does not a springtime make yet some sunworshippers grab any port in a storm. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > After the killing of a wounded, unarmed "insurgent" > by > a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the > Islamic > world would reveal an unprecedented level of undying > hatred for the US. > > No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that > image. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a Global basis > > I would have thought Bush's task after being elected > U.S. President > was to mold his allies into a common cause. That > seems > to be what > we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. Which > of > the > European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what > about Putin..... > I do think he's still part of the gameplan. > A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the > Christmas > Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might > offer > a different > profile. > > Gerry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." > To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > ; "The new improved > paleopsych list" > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a > Global basis > > > >> About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial >> Times >> (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in >> which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, >> and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, >> Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land >> (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. >> Views >> of Islam clearly were in the background. >> My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, >> and we had some jokes... >> and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told >> me there was a new poll just >> before the election, and then it was only Poland. I >> didn't ping him for sources. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 20 00:18:39 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:18:39 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis Message-ID: <01C4CE53.6E9B5EA0.shovland@mindspring.com> How did we feel when we saw those dead contractors strung up on the bridge in Fallujah? There were only four of them. What's the big deal? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:02 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis Killing that insurgent is an isolated incident and does NOT constitute initiating killing fields. One robin does not a springtime make yet some sunworshippers grab any port in a storm. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > After the killing of a wounded, unarmed "insurgent" > by > a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the > Islamic > world would reveal an unprecedented level of undying > hatred for the US. > > No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that > image. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a Global basis > > I would have thought Bush's task after being elected > U.S. President > was to mold his allies into a common cause. That > seems > to be what > we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. Which > of > the > European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what > about Putin..... > I do think he's still part of the gameplan. > A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the > Christmas > Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might > offer > a different > profile. > > Gerry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." > To: "The new improved paleopsych list" > ; "The new improved > paleopsych list" > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a > Global basis > > > >> About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial >> Times >> (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in >> which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, >> and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, >> Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land >> (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. >> Views >> of Islam clearly were in the background. >> My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, >> and we had some jokes... >> and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told >> me there was a new poll just >> before the election, and then it was only Poland. I >> didn't ping him for sources. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Nov 20 00:28:27 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:28:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis References: <01C4CE53.6E9B5EA0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <02a901c4ce97$dc1e18c0$6003f604@S0027397558> Touche. It served as fodder to carry on our attacks. "It ain't over till the last person's dead". Always has been and always will be as long as the world remains uncivil. At least establishing democracies is a good first step. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:18 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > How did we feel when we saw those dead contractors > strung up on the bridge in Fallujah? There were only > four of them. What's the big deal? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:02 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a Global basis > > > Killing that insurgent is an isolated incident and > does > NOT constitute > initiating killing fields. One robin does not a > springtime make yet some > sunworshippers grab any port in a storm. > > Gerry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Hovland" > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:41 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a > Global basis > > >> After the killing of a wounded, unarmed "insurgent" >> by >> a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the >> Islamic >> world would reveal an unprecedented level of undying >> hatred for the US. >> >> No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that >> image. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt >> [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on >> a Global basis >> >> I would have thought Bush's task after being elected >> U.S. President >> was to mold his allies into a common cause. That >> seems >> to be what >> we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. Which >> of >> the >> European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what >> about Putin..... >> I do think he's still part of the gameplan. >> A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the >> Christmas >> Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might >> offer >> a different >> profile. >> >> Gerry >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." >> >> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" >> ; "The new improved >> paleopsych list" >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on >> a >> Global basis >> >> >> >>> About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial >>> Times >>> (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in >>> which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, >>> and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, >>> Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land >>> (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. >>> Views >>> of Islam clearly were in the background. >>> My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, >>> and we had some jokes... >>> and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told >>> me there was a new poll just >>> before the election, and then it was only Poland. I >>> didn't ping him for sources. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Nov 20 00:39:21 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:39:21 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis In-Reply-To: <024401c4ce94$188641b0$6003f604@S0027397558> References: <01C4CE4E.4C60A6B0.shovland@mindspring.com> <024401c4ce94$188641b0$6003f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <419E9239.2090604@solution-consulting.com> Gerry, you seem to be calling for thoughtful appraisal of gobal forces, and I appreciate it. Reason and analysis are needed. Steve's comment about the dead insurgent indicates a completely unrealistic view of warfare. The day before, an insurgent playing dead blew up a corpsman, and the marines have every reason to be suspicious. Such events happen all the time in war. Read Band of Brothers about the killing of German POWs. Scan www.opinionjournal.com for the "Good news from Iraq / Afghanistan" occasional pieces, and you see the other side. Lynn Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > > Killing that insurgent is an isolated incident and does NOT constitute > initiating killing fields. One robin does not a springtime make yet > some > sunworshippers grab any port in a storm. > > Gerry > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" > > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:41 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > > >> After the killing of a wounded, unarmed "insurgent" by >> a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the Islamic >> world would reveal an unprecedented level of undying >> hatred for the US. >> >> No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that image. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis >> >> I would have thought Bush's task after being elected >> U.S. President >> was to mold his allies into a common cause. That seems >> to be what >> we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. Which of >> the >> European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what >> about Putin..... >> I do think he's still part of the gameplan. >> A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the >> Christmas >> Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might offer >> a different >> profile. >> >> Gerry >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." >> >> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" >> ; "The new improved >> paleopsych list" >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a >> Global basis >> >> >> >>> About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial >>> Times >>> (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in >>> which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, >>> and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, >>> Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land >>> (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. Views >>> of Islam clearly were in the background. >>> My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, >>> and we had some jokes... >>> and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told >>> me there was a new poll just >>> before the election, and then it was only Poland. I >>> didn't ping him for sources. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 20 01:42:31 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:42:31 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis Message-ID: <01C4CE5F.2610B2A0.shovland@mindspring.com> No, I recognize that atrocities are a part of warfare. I also recognize that the campaign in Fallujah has been a questionable military success and an absolute disaster in PR terms. No matter what we think of it, that piece of video, which we did not see in its entirety (but the Arab world did), is a fabulous tool for fund raising and recruiting. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:39 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis Gerry, you seem to be calling for thoughtful appraisal of gobal forces, and I appreciate it. Reason and analysis are needed. Steve's comment about the dead insurgent indicates a completely unrealistic view of warfare. The day before, an insurgent playing dead blew up a corpsman, and the marines have every reason to be suspicious. Such events happen all the time in war. Read Band of Brothers about the killing of German POWs. Scan www.opinionjournal.com for the "Good news from Iraq / Afghanistan" occasional pieces, and you see the other side. Lynn Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > > Killing that insurgent is an isolated incident and does NOT constitute > initiating killing fields. One robin does not a springtime make yet > some > sunworshippers grab any port in a storm. > > Gerry > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" > > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:41 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > > >> After the killing of a wounded, unarmed "insurgent" by >> a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the Islamic >> world would reveal an unprecedented level of undying >> hatred for the US. >> >> No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that image. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis >> >> I would have thought Bush's task after being elected >> U.S. President >> was to mold his allies into a common cause. That seems >> to be what >> we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. Which of >> the >> European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what >> about Putin..... >> I do think he's still part of the gameplan. >> A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the >> Christmas >> Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might offer >> a different >> profile. >> >> Gerry >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." >> >> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" >> ; "The new improved >> paleopsych list" >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a >> Global basis >> >> >> >>> About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial >>> Times >>> (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in >>> which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, >>> and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, >>> Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land >>> (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. Views >>> of Islam clearly were in the background. >>> My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, >>> and we had some jokes... >>> and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told >>> me there was a new poll just >>> before the election, and then it was only Poland. I >>> didn't ping him for sources. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > << File: ATT00006.html >> << File: ATT00007.txt >> From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Nov 20 02:49:09 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:49:09 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis References: <01C4CE5F.2610B2A0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <033b01c4ceab$838f42b0$6003f604@S0027397558> Yes, sadly, atrocities are part of warfare and the one insurgent in Fallujah was a disaster. But that insurgent was only ONE figure. Could have been a deranged military man. Fallujah for Americans meant they needed to win. How can winning be a disaster? Unless of course you decide to side with the enemy. The Arab world could have shown a video of mass killing by Americans and the Arab world would have believed it correct. It's wartime and each faction must decide on which side they support. Gerry Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:42 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > No, I recognize that atrocities are a part of > warfare. > > I also recognize that the campaign in Fallujah has > been > a questionable military success and an absolute > disaster > in PR terms. > > No matter what we think of it, that piece of video, > which > we did not see in its entirety (but the Arab world > did), is a > fabulous tool for fund raising and recruiting. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. > [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:39 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a Global basis > > Gerry, you seem to be calling for thoughtful > appraisal of gobal forces, > and I appreciate it. Reason and analysis are needed. > Steve's comment > about the dead insurgent indicates a completely > unrealistic view of > warfare. The day before, an insurgent playing dead > blew up a corpsman, > and the marines have every reason to be suspicious. > Such events happen > all the time in war. Read Band of Brothers about the > killing of German > POWs. > Scan www.opinionjournal.com for the "Good news > from Iraq / > Afghanistan" occasional pieces, and you see the other > side. > Lynn > > Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > >> >> Killing that insurgent is an isolated incident and >> does NOT constitute >> initiating killing fields. One robin does not a >> springtime make yet >> some >> sunworshippers grab any port in a storm. >> >> Gerry >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" >> >> To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >> >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:41 PM >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on >> a Global basis >> >> >>> After the killing of a wounded, unarmed "insurgent" >>> by >>> a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the >>> Islamic >>> world would reveal an unprecedented level of >>> undying >>> hatred for the US. >>> >>> No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that >>> image. >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt >>> [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM >>> To: The new improved paleopsych list >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States >>> on a Global basis >>> >>> I would have thought Bush's task after being >>> elected >>> U.S. President >>> was to mold his allies into a common cause. That >>> seems >>> to be what >>> we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. >>> Which of >>> the >>> European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what >>> about Putin..... >>> I do think he's still part of the gameplan. >>> A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the >>> Christmas >>> Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might >>> offer >>> a different >>> profile. >>> >>> Gerry >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werbos, Dr. >>> Paul J." >>> >>> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" >>> ; "The new improved >>> paleopsych list" >>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States >>> on a >>> Global basis >>> >>> >>> >>>> About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial >>>> Times >>>> (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls >>>> in >>>> which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, >>>> and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, >>>> Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land >>>> (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. >>>> Views >>>> of Islam clearly were in the background. >>>> My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, >>>> and we had some jokes... >>>> and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom >>>> told >>>> me there was a new poll just >>>> before the election, and then it was only Poland. >>>> I >>>> didn't ping him for sources. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > << File: ATT00006.html >> << File: ATT00007.txt >> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Nov 20 09:15:01 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:15:01 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Educational CyberPlayGround helps researchers In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041119184003.05a1aec0@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041120040957.00c07398@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:44 PM 11/19/2004 -0500, you wrote: >EDUCATIONAL CYBERPLAYGROUND HELPS RESEARCHERS > >Can it be true? Will Libraries become obsolete? My first impression was great excitement.. but then some questions as I looked further. I now feel... maybe, but I'll believe it when and if I see more... Libraries have books. Lots of key stuff is in books. I don't think I see books being up in this system. arXiv.org does a lot of this kind of function, for some groups. Will the arXiv.org stuff be in this system? Maybe. That would be interesting to see. but arXiv.org is already there. (And is important...) If the main focus is journal articles... what about all those nasty IP problems with journals, and all those very sticky publishers with huge legal budgets? I was tempted to make suggestions to them about how to upgrade content.. but... life is short... Best, Paul >Will this shake up Library La La Land? >Educational CyberPlayGround explains >go to the Search this Site page >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/NAV_Search.html > >Find over 100 more search engines and help that >explains how to work with these tricky monsters. >"The Old way and the Net Way" >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Internet/search.html > >What's the deal with Google Scholar? >11/04 Announces Google Scholar allow users "to search specifically for >scholarly literature, including peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, >preprints, abstracts and technical reports from all broad areas of >research." This includes results from the Open WorldCat program, which is >particularly important since much of this material isn't available in >electronic format yet. It will be even more useful after Google has >harvested all 57 million WorldCat records, instead of the 2 million records >in the pilot subset. > >How to Work with GOOGLE and Google Scholar >the access and the cloaking - the free and the unfree. >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Internet/search2.html > > >Karen Ellis > >TO SUBSCRIBE TO NETHAPPENIGS >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html > ><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> >NetHappenings Mailing List >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html > >copyright Educational CyberPlayGround All rights reserved. >http://www.cyberpg.com > >For information on reproducing items from this newsletter, please visit >http://www.edu-cyberpg.com//Community/NHnewsletter.html > >Internal and External Redistribution of this email needs to contain this >copyright information box. > >Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink >USA Today Best Bets For Educators Award, Macworld Top Fifty ><>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Nov 20 09:20:22 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis In-Reply-To: <033b01c4ceab$838f42b0$6003f604@S0027397558> References: <01C4CE5F.2610B2A0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041120041551.02178068@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:49 PM 11/19/2004 -0800, Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: >Yes, sadly, atrocities are part of warfare and the one >insurgent in Fallujah was a disaster. But that insurgent >was only ONE figure. Could have been a deranged >military man. > >Fallujah for Americans meant they needed to win. How can >winning be a disaster? Unless of course you decide to side >with the enemy. > >The Arab world could have shown a video of mass killing by >Americans and the Arab world would have believed it correct. >It's wartime and each faction must decide on which side they >support. In assessing future scenarios about what might happen in the MidEast in general, it is essential to be realistic about the role of psychological factors we may legitimately disapprove of... but have to live with. Righteous losing is still losing. Of course, the Islamic world is doing strategic thinking about us just as much as vice-versa. Maybe more so. We would be idiots to think their intellectuals are less insightful about politics and maneuvers and the lessons of history than our own inner circle of decision-makers. And they too are talking about the amazing things we miss, as bad as what their populace misses. Best of luck to us all... Paul >Gerry > > > > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller >Independent Scholar >http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" >To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:42 PM >Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > > >>No, I recognize that atrocities are a part of warfare. >> >>I also recognize that the campaign in Fallujah has been >>a questionable military success and an absolute disaster >>in PR terms. >> >>No matter what we think of it, that piece of video, which >>we did not see in its entirety (but the Arab world did), is a >>fabulous tool for fund raising and recruiting. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >>Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:39 PM >>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis >> >>Gerry, you seem to be calling for thoughtful appraisal of gobal forces, >>and I appreciate it. Reason and analysis are needed. Steve's comment >>about the dead insurgent indicates a completely unrealistic view of >>warfare. The day before, an insurgent playing dead blew up a corpsman, >>and the marines have every reason to be suspicious. Such events happen >>all the time in war. Read Band of Brothers about the killing of German >>POWs. >> Scan www.opinionjournal.com for the "Good news from Iraq / >>Afghanistan" occasional pieces, and you see the other side. >>Lynn >> >>Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: >> >>> >>>Killing that insurgent is an isolated incident and does NOT constitute >>>initiating killing fields. One robin does not a springtime make yet >>>some >>>sunworshippers grab any port in a storm. >>> >>>Gerry >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" >>> >>>To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >>>Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:41 PM >>>Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis >>> >>> >>>>After the killing of a wounded, unarmed "insurgent" by >>>>a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the Islamic >>>>world would reveal an unprecedented level of undying >>>>hatred for the US. >>>> >>>>No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that image. >>>> >>>>Steve Hovland >>>>www.stevehovland.net >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>>>Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM >>>>To: The new improved paleopsych list >>>>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis >>>> >>>>I would have thought Bush's task after being elected >>>>U.S. President >>>>was to mold his allies into a common cause. That seems >>>>to be what >>>>we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. Which of >>>>the >>>>European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And what >>>>about Putin..... >>>>I do think he's still part of the gameplan. >>>>A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the >>>>Christmas >>>>Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might offer >>>>a different >>>>profile. >>>> >>>>Gerry >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Werbos, Dr. Paul J." >>>> >>>>To: "The new improved paleopsych list" >>>>; "The new improved >>>>paleopsych list" >>>>Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM >>>>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a >>>>Global basis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>About 2-3 weeks before the election, the Financial >>>>>Times >>>>>(not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls in >>>>>which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, >>>>>and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, >>>>>Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land >>>>>(one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. Views >>>>>of Islam clearly were in the background. >>>>>My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and Nigerian, >>>>>and we had some jokes... >>>>>and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom told >>>>>me there was a new poll just >>>>>before the election, and then it was only Poland. I >>>>>didn't ping him for sources. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>paleopsych mailing list >>>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>paleopsych mailing list >>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >><< File: ATT00006.html >> << File: ATT00007.txt >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Nov 20 13:55:38 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 06:55:38 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fallujah video comment In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20041120041551.02178068@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C4CE5F.2610B2A0.shovland@mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20041120041551.02178068@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <419F4CDA.9040309@solution-consulting.com> From www.opinionjournal.com Semper Fi The story of Fallujah isn't on that NBC videotape. Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque. Have we lost all sense of moral proportion? The al-Zarqawi TV network, also known as Al-Jazeera, has broadcast the tape to the Arab world, and U.S. media have also played it up. The point seems to be to conjure up images again of Abu Ghraib, further maligning the American purpose in Iraq. Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat. Put yourself in that Marine's boots. He and his mates have had to endure some of the toughest infantry duty imaginable, house-to-house urban fighting against an enemy that neither wears a uniform nor obeys any normal rules of war. Here is how that enemy fights, according to an account in the Times of London: "In the south of Fallujah yesterday, U.S. Marines found the armless, legless body of a blonde woman, her throat slashed and her entrails cut out. Benjamin Finnell, a hospital apprentice with the U.S. Navy Corps, said that she had been dead for a while, but at that location for only a day or two. The woman was wearing a blue dress; her face had been disfigured. It was unclear if the remains were the body of the Irish-born aid worker Margaret Hassan, 59, or of Teresa Borcz, 54, a Pole abducted two weeks ago. Both were married to Iraqis and held Iraqi citizenship; both were kidnapped in Baghdad last month." When not disemboweling Iraqi women, these killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead. Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque? Beyond the one incident, think of what the Marine and Army units just accomplished in Fallujah. In a single week, they killed as many as 1,200 of the enemy and captured 1,000 more. They did this despite forfeiting the element of surprise, so civilians could escape, and while taking precautions to protect Iraqis that no doubt made their own mission more difficult and hazardous. And they did all of this not for personal advantage, and certainly not to get rich, but only out of a sense of duty to their comrades, their mission and their country. In a more grateful age, this would be hailed as one of the great battles in Marine history--with Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Hue City and the Chosin Reservoir. We'd know the names of these military units, and of many of the soldiers too. Instead, the name we know belongs to the NBC correspondent, Kevin Sites. We suppose he was only doing his job, too. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to indulge in the moral abdication that would equate deliberate televised beheadings of civilians with a Marine shooting a terrorist, who may or may not have been armed, amid the ferocity of battle. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: storyend_dingbat.gif Type: image/gif Size: 155 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 20 14:22:00 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 06:22:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fallujah video comment Message-ID: <01C4CEC9.3F1B0420.shovland@mindspring.com> Absolutely true from our point of view. Makes absolutely no difference on the Arab street. It defines "quagmire." Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 5:56 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Fallujah video comment From www.opinionjournal.com Semper Fi The story of Fallujah isn't on that NBC videotape. Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque. Have we lost all sense of moral proportion? The al-Zarqawi TV network, also known as Al-Jazeera, has broadcast the tape to the Arab world, and U.S. media have also played it up. The point seems to be to conjure up images again of Abu Ghraib, further maligning the American purpose in Iraq. Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat. Put yourself in that Marine's boots. He and his mates have had to endure some of the toughest infantry duty imaginable, house-to-house urban fighting against an enemy that neither wears a uniform nor obeys any normal rules of war. Here is how that enemy fights, according to an account in the Times of London: "In the south of Fallujah yesterday, U.S. Marines found the armless, legless body of a blonde woman, her throat slashed and her entrails cut out. Benjamin Finnell, a hospital apprentice with the U.S. Navy Corps, said that she had been dead for a while, but at that location for only a day or two. The woman was wearing a blue dress; her face had been disfigured. It was unclear if the remains were the body of the Irish-born aid worker Margaret Hassan, 59, or of Teresa Borcz, 54, a Pole abducted two weeks ago. Both were married to Iraqis and held Iraqi citizenship; both were kidnapped in Baghdad last month." When not disemboweling Iraqi women, these killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead. Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque? Beyond the one incident, think of what the Marine and Army units just accomplished in Fallujah. In a single week, they killed as many as 1,200 of the enemy and captured 1,000 more. They did this despite forfeiting the element of surprise, so civilians could escape, and while taking precautions to protect Iraqis that no doubt made their own mission more difficult and hazardous. And they did all of this not for personal advantage, and certainly not to get rich, but only out of a sense of duty to their comrades, their mission and their country. In a more grateful age, this would be hailed as one of the great battles in Marine history--with Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Hue City and the Chosin Reservoir. We'd know the names of these military units, and of many of the soldiers too. Instead, the name we know belongs to the NBC correspondent, Kevin Sites. We suppose he was only doing his job, too. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to indulge in the moral abdication that would equate deliberate televised beheadings of civilians with a Marine shooting a terrorist, who may or may not have been armed, amid the ferocity of battle. << File: ATT00010.html >> << File: storyend_dingbat.gif >> << File: ATT00011.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 20 15:19:04 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:19:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Singularities Shift Mass Consciousness Message-ID: <01C4CED1.37BFF430.shovland@mindspring.com> To a large degree the world runs on central tendencies, and the course of history or commerce is not changed very much by isolated incidents. But the central tendency does shift, and I would suggest that the shift is caused by isolated incidents. As a photographer I find it interesting that those isolated incidences are often conveyed in my medium. A soldier kills a wounded enemy... Bodies hang on a bridge... A man with a cone on his head stands on a box... Buildings collapse... A President is shot... A flag is raised on a remote island... Gaunt faces in striped suits stare through a barbed wire fence... A fleet is attacked... All good photographers know that our pictures have to be graphic to be effective, so we get in close and try to capture the most important information in a few simple shapes. I guess it's all our fault :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Nov 20 15:53:13 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:53:13 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fallujah video comment In-Reply-To: <01C4CEC9.3F1B0420.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4CEC9.3F1B0420.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <419F6869.40800@solution-consulting.com> The Left has been whining about 'quagmire' since Afghanistan. It is foolish. The Arab street will follow success, and we are clearly not in a quagmire. Fallujah is a remarkable success, and more such successes will follow as the Iraqi National Guard - especially the officer corps - gains experience and dedication. Iraq is to the war in terror as Italy was to WW II. It was of questionable importance, and arguably could have been leap-frogged. In terms of long-term victory in WW IV (which we are now in, having won WW III, thanks to Reagan and Gorbachev) we must achieve some form of liberal democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as the communists achieved a certain domino effect following our withdrawal from Viet Nam, so liberal democracy can create a domino effect in the benighted middle east. Their socialist governments are the worst on the planet, and the Arab street will gladly forgive us when they see prosperity and freedom developing. Iran will fall to the youth (who are now passively resisting the Mullahs) and follow. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61117-2004Nov18.html Lynn Steve Hovland wrote: >Absolutely true from our point of view. > >Makes absolutely no difference on the Arab street. > >It defines "quagmire." > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > > > From waluk at earthlink.net Sat Nov 20 16:22:09 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:22:09 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis References: <01C4CE6A.A2C6A880.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <004101c4cf1d$16e69d30$6c03f604@S0027397558> You are comparing Iraq to Viet Nam and the two confrontations have very little in common. Nam was a territorial war without cause. At least in Iraq we have a reasonable image of who our enemy is. Insurgents of Islamic ethnicity have morphed into our immediate foe. All wars are brutal in number count and our war with Iraq is no exception. You ask how many troops it will take to handle Iraq.... that answer depends on the degree to which Americans wish to reject Islamic doctrine and Muslim lifeways. If we value peace more than freedom of religion and pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness then we will acquiesce to Osama bin Laden and lay down our guns. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on a Global basis > The Marines took Fallujah but now they are stuck > with it. Thousands of troops will be tied down for > an undetermined period of time. > > Soon after Fallujah fell the insurgents started up > in Mosul, with the Iraqi police going over to the > other side. We had to pull troops out of Fallujah > but couldn't bring too many without giving the > city back to the insurgents. > > Meanwhile the enemy is attacking all over the > place, and we simply do not have enough troops > to handle them. > > It doesn't matter what you feel about the war; > it has its own brutal calculus: numbers count. > > If we couldn't handle Viet Nam with 500,000 troops, > how many will it take to handle Iraq, and how > many years to get up to that strength? Will the > American people support the war when we have > a million men and women over there? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 6:49 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Cc: shovland at mindspring.com > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a Global basis > > Yes, sadly, atrocities are part of warfare and the > one > insurgent in Fallujah was a disaster. But that > insurgent > was only ONE figure. Could have been a deranged > military man. > > Fallujah for Americans meant they needed to win. How > can > winning be a disaster? Unless of course you decide > to > side > with the enemy. > > The Arab world could have shown a video of mass > killing by > Americans and the Arab world would have believed it > correct. > It's wartime and each faction must decide on which > side > they > support. > > Gerry > > > > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Hovland" > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:42 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on > a > Global basis > > >> No, I recognize that atrocities are a part of >> warfare. >> >> I also recognize that the campaign in Fallujah has >> been >> a questionable military success and an absolute >> disaster >> in PR terms. >> >> No matter what we think of it, that piece of video, >> which >> we did not see in its entirety (but the Arab world >> did), is a >> fabulous tool for fund raising and recruiting. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. >> [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 4:39 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States on >> a Global basis >> >> Gerry, you seem to be calling for thoughtful >> appraisal of gobal forces, >> and I appreciate it. Reason and analysis are needed. >> Steve's comment >> about the dead insurgent indicates a completely >> unrealistic view of >> warfare. The day before, an insurgent playing dead >> blew up a corpsman, >> and the marines have every reason to be suspicious. >> Such events happen >> all the time in war. Read Band of Brothers about the >> killing of German >> POWs. >> Scan www.opinionjournal.com for the "Good news >> from Iraq / >> Afghanistan" occasional pieces, and you see the >> other >> side. >> Lynn >> >> Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: >> >>> >>> Killing that insurgent is an isolated incident and >>> does NOT constitute >>> initiating killing fields. One robin does not a >>> springtime make yet >>> some >>> sunworshippers grab any port in a storm. >>> >>> Gerry >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" >>> >>> To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >>> >>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:41 PM >>> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States >>> on >>> a Global basis >>> >>> >>>> After the killing of a wounded, unarmed >>>> "insurgent" >>>> by >>>> a US marine, I would expect that a poll of the >>>> Islamic >>>> world would reveal an unprecedented level of >>>> undying >>>> hatred for the US. >>>> >>>> No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that >>>> image. >>>> >>>> Steve Hovland >>>> www.stevehovland.net >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt >>>> [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:30 PM >>>> To: The new improved paleopsych list >>>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States >>>> on a Global basis >>>> >>>> I would have thought Bush's task after being >>>> elected >>>> U.S. President >>>> was to mold his allies into a common cause. That >>>> seems >>>> to be what >>>> we are now observing as Bush romances Chirac. >>>> Which of >>>> the >>>> European leaders still scorn Bush's lead? And >>>> what >>>> about Putin..... >>>> I do think he's still part of the gameplan. >>>> A new world-wide poll needs to be taken before the >>>> Christmas >>>> Holidays. I think the Blue and Red States might >>>> offer >>>> a different >>>> profile. >>>> >>>> Gerry >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Werbos, Dr. >>>> Paul J." >>>> >>>> To: "The new improved paleopsych list" >>>> ; "The new improved >>>> paleopsych list" >>>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 3:13 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Blue and Red States >>>> on a >>>> Global basis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> About 2-3 weeks before the election, the >>>>> Financial >>>>> Times >>>>> (not a left-wing rag!) reported world-wide polls >>>>> in >>>>> which 3 nations supported Bush, 2 were neutral, >>>>> and all others pro-Kerry. The 3 were Poland, >>>>> Phillipines and Nigeria. The 2 were Thai land >>>>> (one of the ties was Thai! sorry...) and India. >>>>> Views >>>>> of Islam clearly were in the background. >>>>> My Division at NSF was mainly Indian and >>>>> Nigerian, >>>>> and we had some jokes... >>>>> and some very embarrassed Indians. One of whom >>>>> told >>>>> me there was a new poll just >>>>> before the election, and then it was only Poland. >>>>> I >>>>> didn't ping him for sources. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> paleopsych mailing list >>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >>> >> << File: ATT00006.html >> << File: ATT00007.txt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Nov 20 19:12:01 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:12:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] propaganda In-Reply-To: <200411201900.iAKJ0V029978@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041120191201.54571.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that image.<< --This leads to a good topic: how do you use rhetoric to override an image, in general? How would you use facts to override a repetitive, auditory diatribe or talk radio belief system? Are images or words incongruent with the other channel ignored or filtered? When everyone sticks to a propaganda channel, believing all other channels are poison, do they tend to pick a channel that is either visual or auditory, or is it a complex chemistry between images and words? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 20 19:30:51 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:30:51 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] propaganda Message-ID: <01C4CEF4.64414E00.shovland@mindspring.com> George Lakoff is probably the expert on that, and I am currently reading "don't think of an elephant." The Republicans are masters of using rhetorical images to shape public opinion. For the progressives, here are some possibles: Tax Justice The Rape of America Economic Treason Bush's War Leading Us to Disaster Profiting From War Paying for Civilization The Reptilian Agenda Elite Parties Social Justice Health Care for All Wasting Our Soldiers Moral Commerce Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 11:12 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] propaganda >>No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that image.<< --This leads to a good topic: how do you use rhetoric to override an image, in general? How would you use facts to override a repetitive, auditory diatribe or talk radio belief system? Are images or words incongruent with the other channel ignored or filtered? When everyone sticks to a propaganda channel, believing all other channels are poison, do they tend to pick a channel that is either visual or auditory, or is it a complex chemistry between images and words? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Nov 20 21:47:25 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:47:25 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fallujah video comment In-Reply-To: <419F6869.40800@solution-consulting.com> References: <01C4CEC9.3F1B0420.shovland@mindspring.com> <01C4CEC9.3F1B0420.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041120164352.02143d10@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:53 AM 11/20/2004 -0700, Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: >The Left has been whining about 'quagmire' since Afghanistan. It is >foolish. The Arab street will follow success, and we are clearly not in a >quagmire. Fallujah is a remarkable success, and more such successes will >follow as the Iraqi National Guard - especially the officer corps - gains >experience and dedication. How do we know? One can construct scenarios either way. We can declare that belief in a "good" scenario is better than belief in a "bad" scenario. We can even fire everyone who believes in "bad" scenarios. But how do we know which is true? I certainly wouldn't have blind faith in PR pieces from either side. There are times when the way of progress and the ways of faith are mutually orthogonal directions. (And when the ways of faith are 180 degrees off from each other.) >Iraq is to the war in terror as Italy was to WW II. It was of questionable >importance, and arguably could have been leap-frogged. In terms of >long-term victory in WW IV (which we are now in, having won WW III, thanks >to Reagan and Gorbachev) we must achieve some form of liberal democracy in >both Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as the communists achieved a certain >domino effect following our withdrawal from Viet Nam, so liberal democracy >can create a domino effect in the benighted middle east. Their socialist >governments are the worst on the planet, and the Arab street will gladly >forgive us when they see prosperity and freedom developing. Iran will fall >to the youth (who are now passively resisting the Mullahs) and follow. >see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61117-2004Nov18.html >Lynn > >Steve Hovland wrote: > >>Absolutely true from our point of view. >> >>Makes absolutely no difference on the Arab street. >> >>It defines "quagmire." >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Nov 21 02:44:17 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:44:17 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fallujah video comment In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20041120164352.02143d10@incoming.verizon.net> References: <01C4CEC9.3F1B0420.shovland@mindspring.com> <01C4CEC9.3F1B0420.shovland@mindspring.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20041120164352.02143d10@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <41A00101.30405@solution-consulting.com> Good questions. I will try to address . . . Werbos, Dr. Paul J. wrote: > At 08:53 AM 11/20/2004 -0700, Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: > >> The Left has been whining about 'quagmire' since Afghanistan. It is >> foolish. The Arab street will follow success, and we are clearly not >> in a quagmire. Fallujah is a remarkable success, and more such >> successes will follow as the Iraqi National Guard - especially the >> officer corps - gains experience and dedication. > > > How do we know? The officer corps has so far been weak; the enlisted men are therefore weak. The past few engagements it sounds to me like the Iraqi National Guard is coming together. > > One can construct scenarios either way. Good point. > > We can declare that belief in a "good" scenario is better than > belief in a "bad" scenario. This is not good vs. bad, but a must-do if our civilization is to flourish. We are in a very bad spot. The sharia law moslem world has not worked in terms of freedom, material goods, or innovation, but it does work for the reproductive strategy. Islamofascism is deeply tied in to the sharia approach of social organization, and if it succeeds, Israel will disappear, jews will be killed, and christianity will be next. IMHO. But if we can defeat the Islamofascists, it is possible to see a moderate version of Islam develop which will enrich the middle east and assure our immediate survival. > > We can even fire everyone who believes in "bad" scenarios. Well I would see it differently. Bush needs a strong front line to carry on the war on terror, and he is just shuffling his people to get that. I am not sure he is right, but I hope he is. > > But how do we know which is true? > > I certainly wouldn't have blind faith in PR pieces from either side. > > There are times when the way of progress and the ways of faith > are mutually orthogonal directions. (And when the ways of faith > are 180 degrees off from each other.) Yes, which is why we must defeat the islamofascists. > > > >> Iraq is to the war in terror as Italy was to WW II. It was of >> questionable importance, and arguably could have been leap-frogged. >> In terms of long-term victory in WW IV (which we are now in, having >> won WW III, thanks to Reagan and Gorbachev) we must achieve some form >> of liberal democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as the >> communists achieved a certain domino effect following our withdrawal >> from Viet Nam, so liberal democracy can create a domino effect in the >> benighted middle east. Their socialist governments are the worst on >> the planet, and the Arab street will gladly forgive us when they see >> prosperity and freedom developing. Iran will fall to the youth (who >> are now passively resisting the Mullahs) and follow. >> see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61117-2004Nov18.html >> Lynn >> >> Steve Hovland wrote: >> >>> Absolutely true from our point of view. >>> >>> Makes absolutely no difference on the Arab street. >>> >>> It defines "quagmire." >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Nov 21 04:30:59 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:30:59 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Michael's rhetoric question In-Reply-To: <20041120191201.54571.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041120191201.54571.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41A01A03.70009@solution-consulting.com> Michael, this is a fascinating question. I wish we were better at it. I will address it from the POV of American's interest in influencing the Arab street, the context of the thread. The major problem I see is that capitalism / liberal democracy has no natural constitutancy, as socialism (or, welfare state politics) does. Eric Hoffer illustrated that forty or so years ago in The True Believer and The Ordeal of Change. The natural constitutancy of socialism is the university and the intellectuals. Since journalists are trained in the university, they tend to support the socialistic world view. So it is an uphill battle to influence the Arab street, since the official government line is socialistic (Baathist) and the journalists are writing from that POV. BTW, see Unholy Alliance for an argument that there is a de facto alliance between the Left and Islamofascism. (C.f., http://www.thefire.org/ for illustrations of the lack of diversity on university campuses) So persuasion would be very difficult since we (Americans) have no natural allies in the media, especially middle east media. OK, I will take a stab at Michael's powerful question. Look to social psychologist Robert Cialdini for some insights. His tools of persuasion are: - Reciprocation: speak of the great sacrifices America has made (standing against the whole world, shedding our blood . . .) to free Afghanistan and Iraq of vicious dictators. Appeal to the Arab sense of fair play. We don't want your oil, we want you as partners in freedom. We have sacrificed for you; lift your eyes and help us. - Consistency: find times when the Arab world supported freedom and persuade the Arab street that they should return to their roots and be consistent with the 'better angels of our nature.' - Social proof: Produce vignettes of the many people in Afghanistan and Iraq that are better off. Put a human face on the notion the Americans - unique in all the world - fight not for dominance or empire, but because it is the right thing to do. Small shopkeepers saying how they are able to freely enjoy the fruits of their labors; women saying they can now vote. - Liking: Emphasize enterprises like "Operation Iraqi Children" showing how we like Arabs and sacrifice for their benefit. - Authority: Find Imams who will speak up for our efforts. (Well, I didn't say it was practical, I just said these are the keys to influence). - Scarcity: stories on how rare a possession true freedom is, and how difficult it is to hold. I would love to hear others on the same topic. Lynn Salt Lake City Home of the 11-0 University of Utah football team, ranked 6th in the BCS. Michael Christopher wrote: >>>No amount of explanation will ever overwrite that >>> >>> >image.<< > >--This leads to a good topic: how do you use rhetoric >to override an image, in general? How would you use >facts to override a repetitive, auditory diatribe or >talk radio belief system? Are images or words >incongruent with the other channel ignored or >filtered? When everyone sticks to a propaganda >channel, believing all other channels are poison, do >they tend to pick a channel that is either visual or >auditory, or is it a complex chemistry between images >and words? > >Michael > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Nov 21 16:44:24 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:44:24 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Propaganda drumbeat on Iran Message-ID: <01C4CFA6.4E1EAB10.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_21-11-2004_pg7_44 It's worth remembering that they threatened to do something pre-emptive if they felt we were threatening them. Critics of Homeland Security say that essentially nothing has been done to increase security around many potentially dangerous domestic sites such as nuclear power or chemical plants, many of which are near densely populated areas. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 22 03:16:58 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:16:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] cialdini In-Reply-To: <200411211900.iALJ0S013551@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041122031658.64308.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>Look to social psychologist Robert Cialdini for some insights.<< --Good source. Are we just not funding good PR for our foreign policy, or are we hiring inept people? Or is the Bush admin so tainted by its connections to the oil industry that no amount of PR could help? The Bush admin has put so much money into appealing to American ideals, but why are we so bad at appealing to Arabs and Muslims? It can't just be because they have a different culture, hiphop and cowboy culture have been sold to the world by people who didn't really understand them but understood the psychology of public relations. Are we just hiring the wrong people? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 22 05:18:04 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:18:04 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] cialdini In-Reply-To: <20041122031658.64308.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041122031658.64308.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41A1768C.20701@solution-consulting.com> Michael, Yes, you have hit the nail on the head here. Why are we so poor at PR with the Arab street? I don't think it is oil money, since you can sell a lot of less likely ideas with proper communication. I wish I knew, and it is one the the reasons I am so uneasy with Bush and his team. They seem to be absolutely blind. Anyone know why???? I actually think they have also done a lousy job communicating with the American public. This election shouldn't have been close, if you look at the basic fact that we are at war and generally people will not change horses in the middle of the war, and Kerry really offered almost nothing new (in contrast with Howard Dean who was a much more interesting person, IMHO). Bush has done a very poor job of communicating about the war. In fact, he has avoided press conferences in his first term, although when I watch him, he really isn't too bad at them. It is a kind of obtuseness about persuasive communication and its value. A number of people on the right are very disturbed by Bush's failure to effectively communicate his message. Bush isn't new with that obtuseness. Lyndon Johnson used to say, "If you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" and look where that got him. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >>>Look to social psychologist Robert Cialdini for some >>> >>> >insights.<< > >--Good source. Are we just not funding good PR for our >foreign policy, or are we hiring inept people? Or is >the Bush admin so tainted by its connections to the >oil industry that no amount of PR could help? The Bush >admin has put so much money into appealing to American >ideals, but why are we so bad at appealing to Arabs >and Muslims? It can't just be because they have a >different culture, hiphop and cowboy culture have been >sold to the world by people who didn't really >understand them but understood the psychology of >public relations. Are we just hiring the wrong people? > > >Michael > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 22 06:42:52 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:42:52 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] cialdini Message-ID: <01C4D01B.70374020.shovland@mindspring.com> I think it's something more profound than a PR issue. I have heard that the average Iraqi thinks we are there for the oil. If we came to zap Saddam, why didn't we leave once the mission was accomplished? I seem to recall that the PR firms who were hired to try to do something about this emerged from their research phases shocked at how deeply people in other countries hate us. The big problems are that we support dictators abroad while enjoying freedom at home, and that we live well on resources extracted from poor countries. It will take more than focus groups to fix that :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 7:17 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] cialdini >>Look to social psychologist Robert Cialdini for some insights.<< --Good source. Are we just not funding good PR for our foreign policy, or are we hiring inept people? Or is the Bush admin so tainted by its connections to the oil industry that no amount of PR could help? The Bush admin has put so much money into appealing to American ideals, but why are we so bad at appealing to Arabs and Muslims? It can't just be because they have a different culture, hiphop and cowboy culture have been sold to the world by people who didn't really understand them but understood the psychology of public relations. Are we just hiring the wrong people? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 22 06:54:10 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:54:10 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] cialdini Message-ID: <01C4D01D.03D92D10.shovland@mindspring.com> Read Lakoff's comments on the strict father model. That's how Bush approaches the world. As Bush himself said in an interview just before the election, when he is confronted by conflicting facts, he decides on principle or prays. If Bush thinks he talks to God, does that make him a schizophrenic? How many different stories has Bush told about why we attacked Iraq? "Lousy job communicating" is a marvelous under- statement. They plainly lied about the war and many other topics. I'm starting to read Stephen Covey's "8th Habit." Many people feel that integrity is the most important characteristic of leadership. Above all, that means being truthful. It is a fact that Bush has a history of alcohol and cocaine abuse. Both of those poisons physically damage the brain, which can lead to presenile dementia. I suspect we see little of Bush because when he goes off script he doesn't make sense, and it may be getting worse. What is the chain of succession? VP then Secretary of State? If Cheney is having problems with shortness of breath, is there a chance that Ms. Rice could become the first black and the first female President of the United States, should Bush become disabled? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 9:18 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] cialdini Michael, Yes, you have hit the nail on the head here. Why are we so poor at PR with the Arab street? I don't think it is oil money, since you can sell a lot of less likely ideas with proper communication. I wish I knew, and it is one the the reasons I am so uneasy with Bush and his team. They seem to be absolutely blind. Anyone know why???? I actually think they have also done a lousy job communicating with the American public. This election shouldn't have been close, if you look at the basic fact that we are at war and generally people will not change horses in the middle of the war, and Kerry really offered almost nothing new (in contrast with Howard Dean who was a much more interesting person, IMHO). Bush has done a very poor job of communicating about the war. In fact, he has avoided press conferences in his first term, although when I watch him, he really isn't too bad at them. It is a kind of obtuseness about persuasive communication and its value. A number of people on the right are very disturbed by Bush's failure to effectively communicate his message. Bush isn't new with that obtuseness. Lyndon Johnson used to say, "If you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" and look where that got him. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >>>Look to social psychologist Robert Cialdini for some >>> >>> >insights.<< > >--Good source. Are we just not funding good PR for our >foreign policy, or are we hiring inept people? Or is >the Bush admin so tainted by its connections to the >oil industry that no amount of PR could help? The Bush >admin has put so much money into appealing to American >ideals, but why are we so bad at appealing to Arabs >and Muslims? It can't just be because they have a >different culture, hiphop and cowboy culture have been >sold to the world by people who didn't really >understand them but understood the psychology of >public relations. Are we just hiring the wrong people? > > >Michael > > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 22 20:25:37 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:25:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] selling america to the world In-Reply-To: <200411221900.iAMJ0e010031@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041122202537.58185.qmail@web13426.mail.yahoo.com> >>I wish I knew, and it is one the the reasons I am so uneasy with Bush and his team. They seem to be absolutely blind. Anyone know why????<< --It does seem that the Bush team is dominated by people who did really well with a single political formula and can't change their strategy to deal with a different culture. What worked in Texas and other Southern and Midwestern states didn't work in the West and Northeast. People living in high-divorce states claiming they can protect marriage by keeping gays out of it just don't make any sense, unless you're responding with a sense of emotional identity, "He's one of us" and not thinking about reality. If someone is "one of us" we don't really have to think about their argument, just how it makes us feel. I doubt many Arabs would respond to Southern white male identity politics, despite some similarities in the two cultures. And that identity thing is what Democrats have lacked since Clinton. We'd reject Abraham Lincoln for the same reason, he just wouldn't be charismatic enough and wouldn't come across as "one of us". Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 22 20:32:03 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:32:03 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] selling america to the world Message-ID: <01C4D08F.460240B0.shovland@mindspring.com> "one of us" hits pretty close to what Lakoff highlights. People vote their identity, not their self-interests. Perhaps the Progressives can take over the Reptilian emotion of hunger, manifesting as hope. The Republicans pretty much own fear. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 12:26 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] selling america to the world >>I wish I knew, and it is one the the reasons I am so uneasy with Bush and his team. They seem to be absolutely blind. Anyone know why????<< --It does seem that the Bush team is dominated by people who did really well with a single political formula and can't change their strategy to deal with a different culture. What worked in Texas and other Southern and Midwestern states didn't work in the West and Northeast. People living in high-divorce states claiming they can protect marriage by keeping gays out of it just don't make any sense, unless you're responding with a sense of emotional identity, "He's one of us" and not thinking about reality. If someone is "one of us" we don't really have to think about their argument, just how it makes us feel. I doubt many Arabs would respond to Southern white male identity politics, despite some similarities in the two cultures. And that identity thing is what Democrats have lacked since Clinton. We'd reject Abraham Lincoln for the same reason, he just wouldn't be charismatic enough and wouldn't come across as "one of us". Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 22 23:05:56 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:05:56 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Frank Luntz: the Right's Word Smith Message-ID: <01C4D0A4.C5447B30.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.luntzspeak.com/graphics/LuntzResearch.Memo.pdf Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 22 23:10:51 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:10:51 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Daniel Kahneman: people don't vote their self interest Message-ID: <01C4D0A5.754E8D40.shovland@mindspring.com> The Prospect Theory, advanced by Dr. Kahneman and his colleague the late Dr. Amos Tversky, challenges mainstream economists' assumptions that people are rational and motivated by self-interest, and that they make rational financial decisions. It suggests that more psychological motives, including emotions and biases, determine people's economical behavior and that when making decisions people frequently take short-cuts, utilize cognitive heuristics, and make flawed but human choices. From HowlBloom at aol.com Mon Nov 22 23:41:34 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:41:34 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <66.4ac3f70c.2ed3d32e@aol.com> Greg Bear just sent me an amazing paper he delivered to the American Philosophical Society. I've enclosed a copy below. The paper points out that evolution appears to occur in short bursts followed by long periods of stability. He points out that this is more meaningful than at first it seems. Evolutionary changes, he says, are apparently stored up but are kept from expressing themselves. Then, when the right signal comes, they come out of hiding and change the organism in which they've been hiding. They don't just change one organism. They make that change in a massive crowd of organisms--and in crowds of crowds. In one of my papers, The Xerox Effect (see http://physicaplus.org.il/view_eng1.html), I've called the spontaneous and simultaneous precipitation of protons, galaxies, and stars supersimultaneity and supersynchrony. In Greg's view, this supersimultaneity and supersychrony also occurs in the evolution of life. But how does it work? How do evolutionary changes stack up in storage? Do they go through any sort of pretesting, any process of natural selection, any tryouts in the obstacle course of the real world? How do they do this if they're not expressed in bodyplans or bodychanges that can be put through their paces to see if they work? And, as Greg asks, when this host of changes comes out of hiding in a bunch of creatures simultaneously, what's the trigger that sets off the explosion of change? Howard ps the boldfaced sections and those in yellow are my ways of highlighting material for myself. Ignore the bolding and yellowing. WHEN GENES GO WALKABOUT By Greg Bear I?m pleased and honored to be asked to appear before the American Philosophical Society, and especially in such august company. Honored... and more than a little nervous! I am not, after all, a scientist, but a writer of fiction--and not just of fiction, but of science fiction. That means humility is not my strong suit. Science fiction writers like to be provocative. That?s our role. What we write is far from authoritative, or final, but science fiction works best when it stimulates debate. I am an interested amateur, an English major with no degrees in science. And I am living proof that you don?t have to be a scientist to enjoy deep exploration of science. So here we go--a personal view. A revolution is under way in how we think about the biggest issues in biology--genetics and evolution. The two are closely tied, and viruses--long regarded solely as agents of disease--seem to play a major role. For decades now, I?ve been skeptical about aspects of the standard theory of evolution, the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis. But without any useful alternative--and since I?m a writer, and not a scientist, and so my credentials are suspect--I have pretty much kept out of the debate. Nevertheless, I have lots of time to read--my writing gives me both the responsibility and the freedom to do that, to research thoroughly and get my facts straight. And over ten years ago, I began to realize that many scientists were discovering key missing pieces of the evolutionary puzzle. Darwin had left open the problem of what initiated variation in species. Later scientists had closed that door and locked it. It was time to open the door again. Collecting facts from many sources--including papers and texts by the excellent scientists speaking here today--I tried to assemble the outline of a modern appendix to Darwin, using ideas derived from disciplines not available in Darwin?s time: theories of networks, software design, information transfer and knowledge, and social communication--lots of communication. My primary inspiration and model was variation in bacteria. Bacteria initiate mutations in individuals and even in populations through gene transfer, the swapping of DNA by plasmids and viruses. Another inspiration was the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, popularized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. In the fossil record--and for that matter, in everyday life--what is commonly observed are long periods of evolutionary stability, or equilibrium, punctuated by sudden change over a short span of time, at least geologically speaking--ten thousand years or less. And the changes seem to occur across populations. Gradualism--the slow and steady accumulation of defining mutations, a cornerstone of the modern synthesis--does not easily accommodate long periods of apparent stability, much less rapid change in entire populations. If punctuated equilibrium is a real phenomenon, then it means that evolutionary change can be put on hold. How is that done? How is the alleged steady flow of mutation somehow delayed, only to be released all at once? I was fascinated by the possibility that potential evolutionary change could be stored up. Where would it be kept? Is there a kind of genetic library where hypothetical change is processed, waiting for the right moment to be expressed? Does this imply not only storage, but a kind of sorting, a critical editing function within our DNA, perhaps based on some unknown genetic syntax and morphology? If so, then what triggers the change? Most often, it appears that the trigger is either environmental challenge or opportunity. Niches go away, new niches open up. Food and energy becomes scarce. New sources of food and energy become available. Lacking challenge or change, evolution tends to go to sleep--perhaps to dream, and sometimes to rumple the covers, but not to get out of bed and go for coffee. Because bacteria live through many generations in a very short period of time, their periods of apparent stability are not millennia, but years or months or even days. The most familiar mutational phenomenon in bacteria--resistance to antibiotics--can happen pretty quickly. Bacteria frequently exchange plasmids that carry genes that counteract the effects of antibiotics. Bacteria can also absorb and incorporate raw fragments of DNA and RNA, not packaged in nice little chromosomes. The members of the population not only sample the environment, but exchange formulas, much as our grandmothers might swap recipes for soup and bread and cookies. How these recipes initially evolve can in many instances be attributed to random mutation--or to the fortuitous churning of gene fragments--acting through the filter of natural selection. Bacteria do roll the dice, but recent research indicates that they roll the dice more often when they?re under stress--that is, when mutations will be advantageous. Interestingly, they also appear to roll the dice predominantly in those genetic regions where mutation will do them the most good! Bacteria, it seems, have learned how to change more efficiently. Once these bacterial capabilities evolve, they spread rapidly. However, they spread only when a need arises--again, natural selection. No advantage, no proliferation. No challenge, no change. But gene swapping is crucial. And it appears that bacteria accept these recipes not just through random action, but through a complicated process of decision-making. Bacterial populations are learning and sharing. In short, bacteria are capable of metaevolution--self-directed change in response to environmental challenges. Because of extensive gene transfer, establishing a strict evolutionary tree of bacterial types has become difficult, though likely not impossible. We?re just going to have to be clever, like detectives solving crimes in a town where everyone is a thief. Perhaps the most intriguing method of gene swapping in bacteria is the bacteriophage, or bacterial virus. Bacteriophages--phages for short--can either kill large numbers of host bacteria, reproducing rapidly, or lie dormant in the bacterial chromosome until the time is right for expression and release. Lytic phages almost invariably kill their hosts. But these latter types--known as lysogenic phages--can actually transport useful genes between hosts, and not just randomly, but in a targeted fashion. In fact, bacterial pathogens frequently rely on lysogenic phages to spread toxin genes throughout a population. Cholera populations become pathogenic in this fashion. In outbreaks of E. coli that cause illness in humans, lysogenic phages have transported genes from shigella--a related bacterial type--conferring the ability to produce shiga toxin, a potent poison. Thus, what at first glance looks like a disease--viral infection--is also an essential method of communication--FedEx for genes. When genes go walkabout, bacteria can adapt quickly to new opportunities. In the case of bacterial pathogens, they can rapidly exploit a potential marketplace of na?ve hosts. In a way, decisions are made, quorums are reached, genes are swapped, and behaviors change. What lies behind the transfer of bacterial genes? Again, environmental challenges and opportunities. While some gene exchange may be random, bacterial populations overall appear to practice functions similar to education, regimentation, and even the execution of uncooperative members. When forming bacterial colonies, many bacteria--often of different types--group together and exchange genes and chemical signals to produce an organized response to environmental change. Often this response is the creation of a biofilm, a slimy polysaccharide construct complete with structured habitats, fluid pathways, and barriers that discourage predators. Biofilms can even provide added protection against antibiotics. Bacteria that do not go along with this regimen can be forced to die--either by being compelled to commit suicide or by being subjected to other destructive measures. If you don?t get with the picture, you break down and become nutrients for those bacterial brothers who do, thus focusing and strengthening the colony. A number of bacteriologists have embraced the notion that bacteria can behave like multicellular organisms. Bacteria cooperate for mutual advantage. Today, in the dentist?s office, what used to be called plaque is now commonly referred to as a biofilm. They?re the same thing--bacterial cities built on your teeth. In 1996, I proposed to my publishers a novel about the coming changes in biology and evolutionary theory. The novel would describe an evolutionary event happening in real-time--the formation of a new sub-species of human being. What I needed, I thought, was some analog to what happens in bacteria. And so I would have to invent ancient viruses lying dormant in our genome, suddenly reactivated to ferry genes and genetic instructions between humans. To my surprise, I quickly discovered I did not have to invent anything. Human endogenous retroviruses are real, and many of them have been in our DNA for tens of millions of years. Even more interesting, some have a close relationship to the virus that causes AIDS, HIV. The acronym HERV--human endogenous retrovirus--became my mantra. In 1997 and 1998, I searched the literature (and the internet) for more articles about these ancient curiosities--and located a few pieces here and there, occasional mention in monographs, longer discussions in a few very specialized texts. I was especially appreciative of the treatment afforded to HERV in the Cold Spring Harbor text Retroviruses, edited by Drs. Coffin, Varmus, and Hughes. But to my surprise, the sources were few, and there was no information about HERV targeted to the general layman. As a fiction writer, however, I was in heaven--ancient viruses in our genes! And hardly anyone had heard of them. If I had had any sense, I would have used that for what it seemed at face value--a ticking time bomb waiting to go off and destroy us all. But I had different ideas. I asked, what do HERV do for us? Why do we allow them to stay in our genome? In fact, even in 1983, when I was preparing my novel Blood Music, I asked myself--what do viruses do ?for us? Why do we allow them to infect us? I suspected they were part of a scheme involving computational DNA, but could not fit them in...not just then. HIV was just coming into the public consciousness, and retroviruses were still controversial. I learned that HERV express in significant numbers in pregnant women, producing defective viral particles apparently incapable of passing to another human host. So what were they--useless hangers-on? Genetic garbage? Instinctively, I could not believe that. I?ve always been skeptical of the idea of junk DNA, and certainly skeptical of the idea that the non-coding portions of DNA are deserts of slovenly and selfish disuse. HERV seemed to be something weird, something wonderful and counter-intuitive--and they were somehow connected with HIV, a species-crossing retrovirus that had become one of the major health scourges on the planet. I couldn?t understand the lack of papers and other source material on HERV. Why weren?t they being investigated by every living biologist? In my rapidly growing novel, I wrote of Kaye Lang, a scientist who charts the possible emergence of an HERV capable of producing virions--particles that can infect other humans. To her shock, the HERV she studies is connected by investigators at the CDC with a startling new phenomenon, the apparent mutation and death of infants. The infectious HERV is named SHEVA. But SHEVA turns out to be far more than a disease. It?s a signal prompting the expression of a new phenotype, a fresh take on humanity--a signal on Darwin?s Radio. In 1999, the novel was published. To my gratified surprise, it was reviewed in Nature and other science journals. Within a very few months, news items about HERV became far more common. New scientific papers reported that ERV-related genes could help human embryos implant in the womb--something that has recently been given substantial credence. And on the web, I encountered the fascinating papers of Dr. Luis P. Villarreal. I felt as if I had spotted a big wave early, and jumped on board just in time. Still, we have not found any evidence of infectious HERV--and there is certainly no proof that retroviruses do everything I accuse them of in Darwin?s Radio. But after four years, the novel holds up fairly well. It?s not yet completely out of date. And the parallel of HERV with lysogenic phages is still startling. But back to the real world of evolution and genetics. The picture we see now in genetics is complex. Variation can occur in a number of ways. DNA sequence is not fate; far from it. The same sequence can yield many different products. Complexes of genes lie behind most discernible traits. Genes can be turned on and off at need. Non-coding DNA is becoming extremely important to understanding how genes do their work. As well, mutations are not reliable indicators of irreversible change. In many instances, mutations are self-directed responses to the environment. Changes can be reversed and then reenacted at a later time--and even passed on as reversible traits to offspring. Even such neo-Darwinian no-nos as the multiple reappearances of wings in stick insects points toward the existence of a genetic syntax, a phylogenetic toolbox, rather than random mutation. Wings are in the design scheme, the bauplan. When insects need them, they can be pulled from the toolbox and implemented once again. We certainly don?t have to throw out Mr. Darwin. Natural selection stays intact. Random variation is not entirely excised. But the neo-Darwinian dogma of random mutation as a cause of all variation, without exception, has been proven wrong. Like genetics, evolution is not just one process, but a collaboration of many processes and techniques. And evolution is not entirely blind. Nor must evolution be directed by some outside and supernatural intelligence to generate the diversity and complexity we see. Astonishing creativity, we?re discovering, can be explained by wonderfully complicated internal processes. These newer views of evolution involve learning and teamwork. Evolution is in large part about communication--comparing notes and swapping recipes, as it were. It appears that life has a creative memory, and knows when and how to use it. Let?s take a look at what the scientists have discovered thus far. Viruses can and do ferry useful genes between organisms. Viruses can also act as site-specific regulators of genetic expression. Within a cell, transposable elements--jumping genes similar in some respects to endogenous retroviruses--can also be targeted to specific sites and can regulate specific genes. Both viruses and transposable elements can be activated by stress-related chemistry, either in their capacity as selfish pathogens--a stressed organism may be a weakened organism--or as beneficial regulators of gene expression--a stressed organism may need to change its nature and behavior. Viral transmission occurs not just laterally, from host to host (often during sex), but vertically through inherited mobile elements and endogenous retroviruses. Chemical signals between organisms can also change genetic expression. As well, changes in the environment can lead to modification of genetic expression in both the individual and in later generations of offspring. These changes may be epigenetic--factors governing which genes are to be expressed in an organism can be passed on from parent to offspring--but also genetic, in the sequence and character of genes. Our immune system functions as a kind of personal radar, sampling the environment and providing information that allows us to adjust our immune response--and possibly other functions, as well. These pathways and methods of regulation and control point toward a massive natural network capable of exchanging information--not just genes themselves, but how genes should be expressed, and when. Each gene becomes a node in a genomic network that solves problems on the cellular level. Cells talk to each other through chemistry and gene transfer. And through sexual recombination, pheromonal interaction, and viruses, multicellular organisms communicate with each other and thus become nodes in a species-wide network. On the next level, through predation and parasitism, as well as through cross-species exchange of genes, an ecosystem becomes a network in its own right, an interlinking of species both cooperating and competing, often at the same time. Neural networks from beehives to brains solve problems through the exchange and the selective cancellation and modification of signals. Species and organisms in ecosystems live and die like signals in a network. Death--the ax of natural selection--is itself a signal, a stop-code, if you will. Networks of signals exist in all of nature, from top to bottom--from gene exchange to the kinds of written and verbal communication we see at this event. Changes in genes can affect behavior. Sometimes even speeches can affect behavior. Evolution is all about competition and cooperation--and communication. Traditional theories of evolution emphasize the competitive aspect and de-emphasize or ignore the cooperative aspect. But developments in genetics and molecular biology render this emphasis implausible. Genes go walkabout far too often. We are just beginning to understand the marvelous processes by which organisms vary and produce the diversity of living nature. For now, evolution is a wonderful mystery, ripe for further scientific exploration. The gates have been blown open once again. And as a science fiction writer, I?d like to make two provocative and possibly ridiculous predictions. The first is that the more viruses may be found in an organism and its genome, the more rapid will be that organism?s rate of mutation and evolution. And the second: Bacteria are such wonderful, slimmed-down organisms, lacking introns and all the persiflage of eukaryotic biology. It seems to me that rather than bacteria being primitive, and that nucleated cells evolved from them, the reverse could be true. Bacteria may once have occupied large, primitive eukaryotic cells, perhaps similar to those seen in the fossil Vendobionts--or the xenophyophores seen on ocean bottoms today. There, they evolved and swam within the relative safety of the membranous sacs, providing various services, including respiration. They may have eventually left these sacs and become both wandering minstrels and predators, serving and/or attacking other sacs in the primitive seas. Eventually, as these early eukaryotic cells advanced, and perhaps as the result of a particularly vicious cycle of bacterial predation, they shed nearly all their bacterial hangers-on in a protracted phase of mutual separation, lasting hundreds of millions or even billions of years. And what the now trim and super-efficient bacteria--the sports cars of modern biology--left behind were the most slavish and servile members of that former internal community: the mitochondria. Which group will prove to have made the best decision, to have taken the longest and most lasting road? ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsmith06 at maine.rr.com Mon Nov 22 23:50:15 2004 From: dsmith06 at maine.rr.com (David Smith) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:50:15 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? References: <66.4ac3f70c.2ed3d32e@aol.com> Message-ID: <007501c4d0ee$03dd38c0$0200a8c0@dad> This looks fascinating. I must find time to read it (easier said than done). D. ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 6:41 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Greg Bear just sent me an amazing paper he delivered to the American Philosophical Society. I've enclosed a copy below. The paper points out that evolution appears to occur in short bursts followed by long periods of stability. He points out that this is more meaningful than at first it seems. Evolutionary changes, he says, are apparently stored up but are kept from expressing themselves. Then, when the right signal comes, they come out of hiding and change the organism in which they've been hiding. They don't just change one organism. They make that change in a massive crowd of organisms--and in crowds of crowds. In one of my papers, The Xerox Effect (see http://physicaplus.org.il/view_eng1.html), I've called the spontaneous and simultaneous precipitation of protons, galaxies, and stars supersimultaneity and supersynchrony. In Greg's view, this supersimultaneity and supersychrony also occurs in the evolution of life. But how does it work? How do evolutionary changes stack up in storage? Do they go through any sort of pretesting, any process of natural selection, any tryouts in the obstacle course of the real world? How do they do this if they're not expressed in bodyplans or bodychanges that can be put through their paces to see if they work? And, as Greg asks, when this host of changes comes out of hiding in a bunch of creatures simultaneously, what's the trigger that sets off the explosion of change? Howard ps the boldfaced sections and those in yellow are my ways of highlighting material for myself. Ignore the bolding and yellowing. WHEN GENES GO WALKABOUT By Greg Bear I?m pleased and honored to be asked to appear before the American Philosophical Society, and especially in such august company. Honored... and more than a little nervous! I am not, after all, a scientist, but a writer of fiction--and not just of fiction, but of science fiction. That means humility is not my strong suit. Science fiction writers like to be provocative. That?s our role. What we write is far from authoritative, or final, but science fiction works best when it stimulates debate. I am an interested amateur, an English major with no degrees in science. And I am living proof that you don?t have to be a scientist to enjoy deep exploration of science. So here we go--a personal view. A revolution is under way in how we think about the biggest issues in biology--genetics and evolution. The two are closely tied, and viruses--long regarded solely as agents of disease--seem to play a major role. For decades now, I?ve been skeptical about aspects of the standard theory of evolution, the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis. But without any useful alternative--and since I?m a writer, and not a scientist, and so my credentials are suspect--I have pretty much kept out of the debate. Nevertheless, I have lots of time to read--my writing gives me both the responsibility and the freedom to do that, to research thoroughly and get my facts straight. And over ten years ago, I began to realize that many scientists were discovering key missing pieces of the evolutionary puzzle. Darwin had left open the problem of what initiated variation in species. Later scientists had closed that door and locked it. It was time to open the door again. Collecting facts from many sources--including papers and texts by the excellent scientists speaking here today--I tried to assemble the outline of a modern appendix to Darwin, using ideas derived from disciplines not available in Darwin?s time: theories of networks, software design, information transfer and knowledge, and social communication--lots of communication. My primary inspiration and model was variation in bacteria. Bacteria initiate mutations in individuals and even in populations through gene transfer, the swapping of DNA by plasmids and viruses. Another inspiration was the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, popularized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. In the fossil record--and for that matter, in everyday life--what is commonly observed are long periods of evolutionary stability, or equilibrium, punctuated by sudden change over a short span of time, at least geologically speaking--ten thousand years or less. And the changes seem to occur across populations. Gradualism--the slow and steady accumulation of defining mutations, a cornerstone of the modern synthesis--does not easily accommodate long periods of apparent stability, much less rapid change in entire populations. If punctuated equilibrium is a real phenomenon, then it means that evolutionary change can be put on hold. How is that done? How is the alleged steady flow of mutation somehow delayed, only to be released all at once? I was fascinated by the possibility that potential evolutionary change could be stored up. Where would it be kept? Is there a kind of genetic library where hypothetical change is processed, waiting for the right moment to be expressed? Does this imply not only storage, but a kind of sorting, a critical editing function within our DNA, perhaps based on some unknown genetic syntax and morphology? If so, then what triggers the change? Most often, it appears that the trigger is either environmental challenge or opportunity. Niches go away, new niches open up. Food and energy becomes scarce. New sources of food and energy become available. Lacking challenge or change, evolution tends to go to sleep--perhaps to dream, and sometimes to rumple the covers, but not to get out of bed and go for coffee. Because bacteria live through many generations in a very short period of time, their periods of apparent stability are not millennia, but years or months or even days. The most familiar mutational phenomenon in bacteria--resistance to antibiotics--can happen pretty quickly. Bacteria frequently exchange plasmids that carry genes that counteract the effects of antibiotics. Bacteria can also absorb and incorporate raw fragments of DNA and RNA, not packaged in nice little chromosomes. The members of the population not only sample the environment, but exchange formulas, much as our grandmothers might swap recipes for soup and bread and cookies. How these recipes initially evolve can in many instances be attributed to random mutation--or to the fortuitous churning of gene fragments--acting through the filter of natural selection. Bacteria do roll the dice, but recent research indicates that they roll the dice more often when they?re under stress--that is, when mutations will be advantageous. Interestingly, they also appear to roll the dice predominantly in those genetic regions where mutation will do them the most good! Bacteria, it seems, have learned how to change more efficiently. Once these bacterial capabilities evolve, they spread rapidly. However, they spread only when a need arises--again, natural selection. No advantage, no proliferation. No challenge, no change. But gene swapping is crucial. And it appears that bacteria accept these recipes not just through random action, but through a complicated process of decision-making. Bacterial populations are learning and sharing. In short, bacteria are capable of metaevolution--self-directed change in response to environmental challenges. Because of extensive gene transfer, establishing a strict evolutionary tree of bacterial types has become difficult, though likely not impossible. We?re just going to have to be clever, like detectives solving crimes in a town where everyone is a thief. Perhaps the most intriguing method of gene swapping in bacteria is the bacteriophage, or bacterial virus. Bacteriophages--phages for short--can either kill large numbers of host bacteria, reproducing rapidly, or lie dormant in the bacterial chromosome until the time is right for expression and release. Lytic phages almost invariably kill their hosts. But these latter types--known as lysogenic phages--can actually transport useful genes between hosts, and not just randomly, but in a targeted fashion. In fact, bacterial pathogens frequently rely on lysogenic phages to spread toxin genes throughout a population. Cholera populations become pathogenic in this fashion. In outbreaks of E. coli that cause illness in humans, lysogenic phages have transported genes from shigella--a related bacterial type--conferring the ability to produce shiga toxin, a potent poison. Thus, what at first glance looks like a disease--viral infection--is also an essential method of communication--FedEx for genes. When genes go walkabout, bacteria can adapt quickly to new opportunities. In the case of bacterial pathogens, they can rapidly exploit a potential marketplace of na?ve hosts. In a way, decisions are made, quorums are reached, genes are swapped, and behaviors change. What lies behind the transfer of bacterial genes? Again, environmental challenges and opportunities. While some gene exchange may be random, bacterial populations overall appear to practice functions similar to education, regimentation, and even the execution of uncooperative members. When forming bacterial colonies, many bacteria--often of different types--group together and exchange genes and chemical signals to produce an organized response to environmental change. Often this response is the creation of a biofilm, a slimy polysaccharide construct complete with structured habitats, fluid pathways, and barriers that discourage predators. Biofilms can even provide added protection against antibiotics. Bacteria that do not go along with this regimen can be forced to die--either by being compelled to commit suicide or by being subjected to other destructive measures. If you don?t get with the picture, you break down and become nutrients for those bacterial brothers who do, thus focusing and strengthening the colony. A number of bacteriologists have embraced the notion that bacteria can behave like multicellular organisms. Bacteria cooperate for mutual advantage. Today, in the dentist?s office, what used to be called plaque is now commonly referred to as a biofilm. They?re the same thing--bacterial cities built on your teeth. In 1996, I proposed to my publishers a novel about the coming changes in biology and evolutionary theory. The novel would describe an evolutionary event happening in real-time--the formation of a new sub-species of human being. What I needed, I thought, was some analog to what happens in bacteria. And so I would have to invent ancient viruses lying dormant in our genome, suddenly reactivated to ferry genes and genetic instructions between humans. To my surprise, I quickly discovered I did not have to invent anything. Human endogenous retroviruses are real, and many of them have been in our DNA for tens of millions of years. Even more interesting, some have a close relationship to the virus that causes AIDS, HIV. The acronym HERV--human endogenous retrovirus--became my mantra. In 1997 and 1998, I searched the literature (and the internet) for more articles about these ancient curiosities--and located a few pieces here and there, occasional mention in monographs, longer discussions in a few very specialized texts. I was especially appreciative of the treatment afforded to HERV in the Cold Spring Harbor text Retroviruses, edited by Drs. Coffin, Varmus, and Hughes. But to my surprise, the sources were few, and there was no information about HERV targeted to the general layman. As a fiction writer, however, I was in heaven--ancient viruses in our genes! And hardly anyone had heard of them. If I had had any sense, I would have used that for what it seemed at face value--a ticking time bomb waiting to go off and destroy us all. But I had different ideas. I asked, what do HERV do for us? Why do we allow them to stay in our genome? In fact, even in 1983, when I was preparing my novel Blood Music, I asked myself--what do viruses do ?for us? Why do we allow them to infect us? I suspected they were part of a scheme involving computational DNA, but could not fit them in...not just then. HIV was just coming into the public consciousness, and retroviruses were still controversial. I learned that HERV express in significant numbers in pregnant women, producing defective viral particles apparently incapable of passing to another human host. So what were they--useless hangers-on? Genetic garbage? Instinctively, I could not believe that. I?ve always been skeptical of the idea of junk DNA, and certainly skeptical of the idea that the non-coding portions of DNA are deserts of slovenly and selfish disuse. HERV seemed to be something weird, something wonderful and counter-intuitive--and they were somehow connected with HIV, a species-crossing retrovirus that had become one of the major health scourges on the planet. I couldn?t understand the lack of papers and other source material on HERV. Why weren?t they being investigated by every living biologist? In my rapidly growing novel, I wrote of Kaye Lang, a scientist who charts the possible emergence of an HERV capable of producing virions--particles that can infect other humans. To her shock, the HERV she studies is connected by investigators at the CDC with a startling new phenomenon, the apparent mutation and death of infants. The infectious HERV is named SHEVA. But SHEVA turns out to be far more than a disease. It?s a signal prompting the expression of a new phenotype, a fresh take on humanity--a signal on Darwin?s Radio. In 1999, the novel was published. To my gratified surprise, it was reviewed in Nature and other science journals. Within a very few months, news items about HERV became far more common. New scientific papers reported that ERV-related genes could help human embryos implant in the womb--something that has recently been given substantial credence. And on the web, I encountered the fascinating papers of Dr. Luis P. Villarreal. I felt as if I had spotted a big wave early, and jumped on board just in time. Still, we have not found any evidence of infectious HERV--and there is certainly no proof that retroviruses do everything I accuse them of in Darwin?s Radio. But after four years, the novel holds up fairly well. It?s not yet completely out of date. And the parallel of HERV with lysogenic phages is still startling. But back to the real world of evolution and genetics. The picture we see now in genetics is complex. Variation can occur in a number of ways. DNA sequence is not fate; far from it. The same sequence can yield many different products. Complexes of genes lie behind most discernible traits. Genes can be turned on and off at need. Non-coding DNA is becoming extremely important to understanding how genes do their work. As well, mutations are not reliable indicators of irreversible change. In many instances, mutations are self-directed responses to the environment. Changes can be reversed and then reenacted at a later time--and even passed on as reversible traits to offspring. Even such neo-Darwinian no-nos as the multiple reappearances of wings in stick insects points toward the existence of a genetic syntax, a phylogenetic toolbox, rather than random mutation. Wings are in the design scheme, the bauplan. When insects need them, they can be pulled from the toolbox and implemented once again. We certainly don?t have to throw out Mr. Darwin. Natural selection stays intact. Random variation is not entirely excised. But the neo-Darwinian dogma of random mutation as a cause of all variation, without exception, has been proven wrong. Like genetics, evolution is not just one process, but a collaboration of many processes and techniques. And evolution is not entirely blind. Nor must evolution be directed by some outside and supernatural intelligence to generate the diversity and complexity we see. Astonishing creativity, we?re discovering, can be explained by wonderfully complicated internal processes. These newer views of evolution involve learning and teamwork. Evolution is in large part about communication--comparing notes and swapping recipes, as it were. It appears that life has a creative memory, and knows when and how to use it. Let?s take a look at what the scientists have discovered thus far. Viruses can and do ferry useful genes between organisms. Viruses can also act as site-specific regulators of genetic expression. Within a cell, transposable elements--jumping genes similar in some respects to endogenous retroviruses--can also be targeted to specific sites and can regulate specific genes. Both viruses and transposable elements can be activated by stress-related chemistry, either in their capacity as selfish pathogens--a stressed organism may be a weakened organism--or as beneficial regulators of gene expression--a stressed organism may need to change its nature and behavior. Viral transmission occurs not just laterally, from host to host (often during sex), but vertically through inherited mobile elements and endogenous retroviruses. Chemical signals between organisms can also change genetic expression. As well, changes in the environment can lead to modification of genetic expression in both the individual and in later generations of offspring. These changes may be epigenetic--factors governing which genes are to be expressed in an organism can be passed on from parent to offspring--but also genetic, in the sequence and character of genes. Our immune system functions as a kind of personal radar, sampling the environment and providing information that allows us to adjust our immune response--and possibly other functions, as well. These pathways and methods of regulation and control point toward a massive natural network capable of exchanging information--not just genes themselves, but how genes should be expressed, and when. Each gene becomes a node in a genomic network that solves problems on the cellular level. Cells talk to each other through chemistry and gene transfer. And through sexual recombination, pheromonal interaction, and viruses, multicellular organisms communicate with each other and thus become nodes in a species-wide network. On the next level, through predation and parasitism, as well as through cross-species exchange of genes, an ecosystem becomes a network in its own right, an interlinking of species both cooperating and competing, often at the same time. Neural networks from beehives to brains solve problems through the exchange and the selective cancellation and modification of signals. Species and organisms in ecosystems live and die like signals in a network. Death--the ax of natural selection--is itself a signal, a stop-code, if you will. Networks of signals exist in all of nature, from top to bottom--from gene exchange to the kinds of written and verbal communication we see at this event. Changes in genes can affect behavior. Sometimes even speeches can affect behavior. Evolution is all about competition and cooperation--and communication. Traditional theories of evolution emphasize the competitive aspect and de-emphasize or ignore the cooperative aspect. But developments in genetics and molecular biology render this emphasis implausible. Genes go walkabout far too often. We are just beginning to understand the marvelous processes by which organisms vary and produce the diversity of living nature. For now, evolution is a wonderful mystery, ripe for further scientific exploration. The gates have been blown open once again. And as a science fiction writer, I?d like to make two provocative and possibly ridiculous predictions. The first is that the more viruses may be found in an organism and its genome, the more rapid will be that organism?s rate of mutation and evolution. And the second: Bacteria are such wonderful, slimmed-down organisms, lacking introns and all the persiflage of eukaryotic biology. It seems to me that rather than bacteria being primitive, and that nucleated cells evolved from them, the reverse could be true. Bacteria may once have occupied large, primitive eukaryotic cells, perhaps similar to those seen in the fossil Vendobionts--or the xenophyophores seen on ocean bottoms today. There, they evolved and swam within the relative safety of the membranous sacs, providing various services, including respiration. They may have eventually left these sacs and become both wandering minstrels and predators, serving and/or attacking other sacs in the primitive seas. Eventually, as these early eukaryotic cells advanced, and perhaps as the result of a particularly vicious cycle of bacterial predation, they shed nearly all their bacterial hangers-on in a protracted phase of mutual separation, lasting hundreds of millions or even billions of years. And what the now trim and super-efficient bacteria--the sports cars of modern biology--left behind were the most slavish and servile members of that former internal community: the mitochondria. Which group will prove to have made the best decision, to have taken the longest and most lasting road? ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaacsonj at hotmail.com Mon Nov 22 23:55:35 2004 From: isaacsonj at hotmail.com (Joel Isaacson) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:55:35 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? In-Reply-To: <66.4ac3f70c.2ed3d32e@aol.com> Message-ID: >From: HowlBloom at aol.com >Reply-To: The new improved paleopsych list >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? >Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:41:34 EST > >Greg Bear just sent me an amazing paper he delivered to the American >Philosophical Society. I've enclosed a copy below. > >The paper points out that evolution appears to occur in short bursts >followed >by long periods of stability. He points out that this is more meaningful >than at first it seems. Evolutionary changes, he says, are apparently >stored up >but are kept from expressing themselves. Then, when the right signal >comes, >they come out of hiding and change the organism in which they've been >hiding. >They don't just change one organism. They make that change in a massive >crowd >of organisms--and in crowds of crowds. > >In one of my papers, The Xerox Effect (see >http://physicaplus.org.il/view_eng1.html), I've called the spontaneous and >simultaneous precipitation of >protons, galaxies, and stars supersimultaneity and supersynchrony. In >Greg's view, >this supersimultaneity and supersychrony also occurs in the evolution of >life. > >But how does it work? How do evolutionary changes stack up in storage? Do >they go through any sort of pretesting, any process of natural selection, >any >tryouts in the obstacle course of the real world? How do they do this if >they're not expressed in bodyplans or bodychanges that can be put through >their >paces to see if they work? Is it possible that this stuff is stored in "junk DNA", awaiting some "unjunking" trigger? -- Joel > >And, as Greg asks, when this host of changes comes out of hiding in a bunch >of creatures simultaneously, what's the trigger that sets off the explosion >of >change? Howard From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 00:15:19 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:15:19 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <01C4D0AE.767FCB30.shovland@mindspring.com> Is it possible that there are incremental changes in the environment that don't require an immediate outward response, but which do cause a series of "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when the environmental changes reach some triggering level? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: ATT00007.txt >> From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Nov 23 01:32:10 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:32:10 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? References: <01C4D0AE.767FCB30.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <02eb01c4d0fc$41b78a20$fd00f604@S0027397558> Could be. Check with Greg Bear. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > Is it possible that there are incremental changes > in the environment that don't require an immediate > outward response, but which do cause a series of > "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when > the environmental changes reach some triggering > level? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00007.txt >> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From ursus at earthlink.net Tue Nov 23 01:42:25 2004 From: ursus at earthlink.net (Greg Bear) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:42:25 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? In-Reply-To: <02eb01c4d0fc$41b78a20$fd00f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: It's a provocative idea, isn't it? Invisible mutations, occurring at the metabolic level, in the "infrastructure," so to speak, but not manifesting in large-scale phenotypic changes. However, I think it's also apparent that all organisms today have a set of "grammatically correct" bauplan variations that can be called upon in incremental (but not gradual) stages in response to environmental challenges over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years in larger animals, and tens of years in insects, and days or weeks in bacteria. The best recent example is the reoccurrence of wings in stick insects... Best wishes! Greg -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Geraldine Reinhardt Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:32 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Could be. Check with Greg Bear. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > Is it possible that there are incremental changes > in the environment that don't require an immediate > outward response, but which do cause a series of > "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when > the environmental changes reach some triggering > level? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00007.txt >> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Nov 23 01:56:27 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:56:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? References: Message-ID: <031401c4d0ff$a6556a30$fd00f604@S0027397558> I've concentrated on environment as being the causal factor in initiating phenotypic changes and I like what I see. Yet I'm not certain how long such a phenotypic change might take. That would depend upon the longevity and psychological discrimination of the organism able to differentiate. As far as I can prove, only humans have the ability to recognize differences. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Bear" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:42 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > It's a provocative idea, isn't it? Invisible > mutations, occurring at the > metabolic level, in the "infrastructure," so to > speak, but not manifesting > in large-scale phenotypic changes. > > However, I think it's also apparent that all > organisms today have a set of > "grammatically correct" bauplan variations that can > be called upon in > incremental (but not gradual) stages in response to > environmental challenges > over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years in larger > animals, and tens of > years in insects, and days or weeks in bacteria. > > The best recent example is the reoccurrence of wings > in stick insects... > > Best wishes! > > Greg > > -----Original Message----- > From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org > [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf > Of Geraldine Reinhardt > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:32 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > Could be. Check with Greg Bear. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Hovland" > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > >> Is it possible that there are incremental changes >> in the environment that don't require an immediate >> outward response, but which do cause a series of >> "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when >> the environmental changes reach some triggering >> level? >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM >> To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change >> stockpiled? >> >> << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: >> ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: >> ATT00007.txt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 02:46:16 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:46:16 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <01C4D0C3.8D66A110.shovland@mindspring.com> There could be multiple mechanisms. Perhaps genes have normally-quiet "subroutines" that spring into action when the challenge reaches a certain level. The subroutines are not solutions- just ways to find solutions. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Greg Bear [SMTP:ursus at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:42 PM To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? It's a provocative idea, isn't it? Invisible mutations, occurring at the metabolic level, in the "infrastructure," so to speak, but not manifesting in large-scale phenotypic changes. However, I think it's also apparent that all organisms today have a set of "grammatically correct" bauplan variations that can be called upon in incremental (but not gradual) stages in response to environmental challenges over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years in larger animals, and tens of years in insects, and days or weeks in bacteria. The best recent example is the reoccurrence of wings in stick insects... Best wishes! Greg -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Geraldine Reinhardt Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:32 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Could be. Check with Greg Bear. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > Is it possible that there are incremental changes > in the environment that don't require an immediate > outward response, but which do cause a series of > "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when > the environmental changes reach some triggering > level? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00007.txt >> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 02:54:29 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:54:29 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <01C4D0C4.B33726C0.shovland@mindspring.com> One "reason" for doing this would be that any change that challenges the genome might not persist. So a solution might be prepared but not implemented until there were more data points to justify it. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Greg Bear [SMTP:ursus at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:42 PM To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? It's a provocative idea, isn't it? Invisible mutations, occurring at the metabolic level, in the "infrastructure," so to speak, but not manifesting in large-scale phenotypic changes. However, I think it's also apparent that all organisms today have a set of "grammatically correct" bauplan variations that can be called upon in incremental (but not gradual) stages in response to environmental challenges over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years in larger animals, and tens of years in insects, and days or weeks in bacteria. The best recent example is the reoccurrence of wings in stick insects... Best wishes! Greg -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Geraldine Reinhardt Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:32 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Could be. Check with Greg Bear. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > Is it possible that there are incremental changes > in the environment that don't require an immediate > outward response, but which do cause a series of > "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when > the environmental changes reach some triggering > level? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00007.txt >> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Nov 23 03:17:19 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:17:19 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] selling america to the world In-Reply-To: <20041122202537.58185.qmail@web13426.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041122202537.58185.qmail@web13426.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41A2ABBF.70303@solution-consulting.com> Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a Peter Principle, where we rise until we are incompetent and then stay there. Appreciative Inquiry has the potential to reduce this kind of us/them dichotomy. Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus tests and run another centrist. Like it or not, people in the US are very suspicious of the term Liberal. Obama seems like someone with real potential. If the war produces a democracy in Iraq and the economy picks up, the Repubs will be tough to beat in 2008. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >>>I wish I knew, and it is one the the reasons I am so >>> >>> >uneasy with Bush and his team. They seem to be >absolutely blind. Anyone know why????<< > >--It does seem that the Bush team is dominated by >people who did really well with a single political >formula and can't change their strategy to deal with a >different culture. What worked in Texas and other >Southern and Midwestern states didn't work in the West >and Northeast. People living in high-divorce states >claiming they can protect marriage by keeping gays out >of it just don't make any sense, unless you're >responding with a sense of emotional identity, "He's >one of us" and not thinking about reality. If someone >is "one of us" we don't really have to think about >their argument, just how it makes us feel. I doubt >many Arabs would respond to Southern white male >identity politics, despite some similarities in the >two cultures. And that identity thing is what >Democrats have lacked since Clinton. We'd reject >Abraham Lincoln for the same reason, he just wouldn't >be charismatic enough and wouldn't come across as "one >of us". > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! >http://my.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Tue Nov 23 03:24:14 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:24:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? References: <01C4D0C3.99B0FDD0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <035201c4d10b$e9faf500$fd00f604@S0027397558> Could be that genes think. I'm fairly certain bacteria and such also cogitate. But like non humans, they all adapt to their environment. Only humans have the ability to use their thinking power to transform their living space...be it for good or bad. I should also add that humans, because they don't adapt, are the reason our environment is in such a horrible state. And because of us (the humans) our environment will be destroyed. Gerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 6:46 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > Maybe genes think. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:56 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Cc: ursus at earthlink.net; shovland at mindspring.com > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > I've concentrated on environment as being the causal > factor in initiating phenotypic changes and I like > what > I see. Yet I'm not certain how long such a > phenotypic > change might take. That would depend upon the > longevity and psychological discrimination of the > organism able to differentiate. As far as I can > prove, > only humans have the ability to recognize > differences. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Bear" > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:42 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > >> It's a provocative idea, isn't it? Invisible >> mutations, occurring at the >> metabolic level, in the "infrastructure," so to >> speak, but not manifesting >> in large-scale phenotypic changes. >> >> However, I think it's also apparent that all >> organisms today have a set of >> "grammatically correct" bauplan variations that can >> be called upon in >> incremental (but not gradual) stages in response to >> environmental challenges >> over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years in >> larger >> animals, and tens of >> years in insects, and days or weeks in bacteria. >> >> The best recent example is the reoccurrence of wings >> in stick insects... >> >> Best wishes! >> >> Greg >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org >> [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf >> Of Geraldine Reinhardt >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:32 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change >> stockpiled? >> >> Could be. Check with Greg Bear. >> >> Gerry Reinhart-Waller >> Independent Scholar >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Hovland" >> To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >> >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change >> stockpiled? >> >> >>> Is it possible that there are incremental changes >>> in the environment that don't require an immediate >>> outward response, but which do cause a series of >>> "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when >>> the environmental changes reach some triggering >>> level? >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM >>> To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change >>> stockpiled? >>> >>> << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: >>> ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: >>> ATT00007.txt >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > From HowlBloom at aol.com Tue Nov 23 07:27:45 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:27:45 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <191.32dcc48b.2ed44071@aol.com> There's a lot of material to back Greg up on "cryptic evolution"--evolution of the genome that takes place in hiding, not revealing itself in changes of the body of a creature. There's also a lot to back him up in his notion of endogenous retroviruses--retroviruses packaged as part of the genome, then used by the genome as domesticated transport animals when the time is ripe. And there's quite a bit to back up Joel's suspicion that the genetic shuttles of endogenous retroviruses and the hidden products of genetic research and development are tucked away in that horribly mislabeled stuff called junk dna. Here's more than you ever wanted to read on the topic. Howard http://news.bmn.com/news/story?day=010705&story=1, downloaded 7/6/01 - 5 July 2001 Today's News Stories News Archive When three steps forward is one step back 4 July 2001 17:00 GMT by Henry Nicholls, BioMedNet News Research published tomorrow further enhances Lewis Carroll's reputation as a closet evolutionary biologist by revealing, in an exceptional analysis according to some specialists, how genetic evolution can fail to keep up with a changing environment. Such "cryptic evolution", so called because the evolving genotype is masked by an apparently unresponsive phenotype, could be widespread in nature, says the Finnish researcher who led the work. The analysis focuses on a 20-year study of an isolated bird population, reports Juha Meril?, senior researcher in the department of ecology and systematics at the University of Helsinki. Collared flycatchers, Ficedula albicollis, on the Swedish island of Gotland have evolved genes to increase their body mass as the birds' environment has deteriorated, but they are losing weight. "Quantitative genetic theory predicts that the relative body mass of flycatcher offspring, which is a heritable trait under positive directional selection, should increase over time, but the relative mass at fledging has actually decreased," Meril? told BioMedNet News. "Our results suggest that if today's flycatcher chicks were to experience a similar environment as the ones that lived in the early 1980s, they would be much fatter than they are today," he said. "I would not be surprised if this [cryptic evolution] turned out to be common," he added. "We should realize ... that similarity in character state in time or space does not mean that evolution has not occurred. A lot of evolution might be of this cryptic nature and we will keep on overlooking it unless we focus more on similarities, rather than exclusively on dissimilarities in character state," warned Meril?. "To my knowledge, this is the first time we have managed to demonstrate occurrence of cryptic genetic evolution over a relatively short period of time in the wild," he said. The work impresses Peter Boag, professor of biology at Queen's University in Ontario. "The really unique feature of this study is that rarely has anyone collected sufficient data from a real world, wild vertebrate population to allow a believable dissection of this complex web of interactions," noted Boag. Meril? readily drew a parallel between his findings and the Red Queen Hypothesis, which originates from Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. "To my mind, the Red Queen metaphor is a fascinating and an intuitive way of thinking about evolution," he acknowledged. Leigh Van Valen, now professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, famously drew on Carroll's fantasy tale, and in particular the Red Queen's advice to Alice that "it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place", as a metaphor for evolution. In 1973, he proposed that in a changing environment, organisms must evolve just to maintain their fitness. The hypothesis is most commonly cast in terms of two organisms, such as the co-evolution between a parasite and its host. As the parasite evolves novel ways of exploiting its host, selection favours the host that evolves novel ways of defending itself against the parasite. Over an evolutionary timescale, both parasite and host will have evolved and yet their relationship might not have changed - neither will appear to be any more successful at outwitting the other. However, in an interview with BioMedNet News, Van Valen pointed out that "the Red Queen's Hypothesis can easily apply to abiotically caused deterioration, which isn't usually realized," and he agreed that Meril?'s flycatchers seem to be subject to the paradox of the Red Queen. "The [flycatchers'] response to selection isn't enough to prevent the population from deteriorating," he noted. "All the running [the flycatchers] can do isn't enough to keep [them] in the same place... It's pretty persuasive and fascinating [research]," he said. Meril? speculates that a large-scale climatic trend could underlie the worsening environment that the flycatchers are experiencing. "Increased spring temperatures have led to increasingly poor synchronization between the hatching date of caterpillars and the date of bud-burst of the oak trees on which they feed," he writes in this week's issue of Nature, published tomorrow. This is bad news for the flycatchers, notes Meril?, because caterpillars are the main source of food for growing nestlings. And it raises the evolutionarily interesting question of "how far can [the flycatchers] lag behind before they have to give up the race?" Meril? concluded: "This strengthens my belief that long-term population studies can be immensely valuable for both evolutionary and environmental biologists, especially now that we seem to be entering into an era of rapid environmental changes caused by anthropogenic activities... These studies can be a valuable resource in the future." Send us your feedback. Printer ready version E-mail article to a friend See also: Warmer springs disrupt the synchrony of oak and winter moth phenology. [MEDLINE] Visser ME, Holleman LJ Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2001 Feb 7 268:1464 289-94 Parasites, predators and the Red Queen [News and Comment] Koen Martens and Isa Sch?n Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, 15:10:392-393 In Search of the Red Queen [Comment] M.E.J. Woolhouse and J.P. Webster Parasitology Today, 2000, 16:12:506-508 In Search of the Red Queen: A Response [Letters] Curtis M. Lively and Mark F. Dybdahl Parasitology Today, 2000, 16:12:508 Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions [Review] Ary A. Hoffmann and Juha Meril? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1999, 14:3:96-101 Related links on other sites: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley Paperback - June 1995) Amazon.com Printer ready version E-mail article to a friend Today's News Stories News Archive ??????????????????? ???????????????????05 July 2001 Nature 412, 76 - 79 (2001) ? Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Cryptic evolution in a wild bird population J. MERIL?*, L. E. B. KRUUK? & B. C. SHELDON?? * Department of Population Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyv?gen 18d, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden ? Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK ? Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK ? Department of Animal Ecology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyv?gen 18d, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.M. (e-mail: juha.merila at ebc.uu.se). Microevolution is expected to be commonplace, yet there are few thoroughly documented cases of microevolution in wild populations1, 2. In contrast, it is often observed that apparently heritable traits under strong and consistent directional selection fail to show the expected evolutionary response3, 4. One explanation proposed for this paradox is that a genetic response to selection may be masked by opposing changes in the environment5, 6. We used data from a 20-year study of collared flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis) to explore selection on, and evolution of, a heritable trait: relative body weight at fledging ('condition'). Despite consistent positive directional selection, on both the phenotypic and the additive genetic component (breeding values, estimated from an animal model) of condition, the mean phenotypic value of this trait in the population has declined, rather than increased, over time. Here we show that, despite this decline, the mean breeding value for condition has increased over time. The mismatch between response to selection at the levels of genotype and phenotype can be explained by environmental deterioration, concealing underlying evolution. This form of cryptic evolution may be common in natural environments. If selection acts consistently on a heritable trait in a population, it should, all else being equal, induce a permanent change in the distribution of that trait7. The frequent lack of expected evolutionary change in heritable traits under directional selection in the wild has therefore puzzled evolutionary biologists for some time. Explanations proposed to account for this paradox include: inflated estimates of heritability owing to environmental covariance between relatives7, spatially and temporally varying selection pressures8, negative genetic correlations between different components of fitness8, and selection restricted to the environmental component of the phenotype3, 4. Another possibility is that a genetic response to selection does in fact occur, but is masked by opposing changes in the environment5, 6. However, to date, these alternatives have been subjected to very little empirical scrutiny8. In many passerine bird species, relative body mass (the condition index) is an important predictor of the survival of fledglings: relatively heavier nestlings are more likely to survive to become breeding adults9-11. This is also true for juvenile survival in other taxa, such as reptiles12 and mammals13. In the collared flycatcher, quantitative genetic analyses using traditional methods suggest a significant additive genetic component to variation in the body condition index14. Mixed model analysis of variance using data for 17,717 offspring in 3,836 breeding attempts, from a long-term study of this species on the island of Gotland, Sweden, confirms this finding, revealing a narrow-sense heritability of 0.30 (standard error, s.e. = 0.03; ref. 15). Analyses of survival selection show that there is significant positive directional selection on condition, such that the survivors are, on average, 0.23 (s.e. = 0.02; P < 0.001) standard deviations above the population mean (Fig. 1a; ref. 15). In some years (6 out of 17), there is also significant stabilizing selection acting on condition, but this is both weaker and less consistent than the directional selection (Fig. 1b). Given that the condition index is heritable and under positive directional selection, we would expect the mean in this population to be evolving towards higher values. However, in contrast to this expectation, the mean condition in the population decreased significantly between 1981 and 1999 (linear regression of annual means: b = -0.036, s.e. = 0.015, t15 = 2.35, P = 0.032; Fig. 2a; generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) of individual values, controlling for family structure and non-independence of observations from the same year: b = -0.035, s.e. = 0.003, t16,057 = 10.25, P < 0.001). Figure 1 Patterns of natural selection on condition index of nestling collared flycatchers from 1981 to 1998. Full legend High resolution image and legend (46k) Figure 2 Changes in condition index over time in the collared flycatcher population from 1981 to 1999. Full legend High resolution image and legend (46k) One plausible explanation for the lack of response to selection is that it is predominantly the non-heritable, or environmental, component of the condition index that determines survival3, 4, such that natural selection does not act on the genetic component of variation in condition. A role for environmental variation in natural selection is suggested by the observation that selection tends to be strongest in years when the mean condition is lowest (linear regression: b = -0.315, s.e. = 0.079, t15 = 4.24; P < 0.001; Fig. 1c). However, a direct test is to calculate selection on estimated breeding values, or the expected effect of the genes that an individual passes on to its offspring, which can be derived from pedigree information7. This analysis shows that selection acts directly on breeding values (standardized selection differential, S = 0.14, s.e. = 0.02, P < 0.001), not only on environmental deviations15. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a response to selection on condition would be constrained by negative genetic correlations with other fitness components. Both individual life-span (LSP) and lifetime reproductive success (LRS) are positively correlated with the breeding values for condition (GLMM: LSP, 2(1) = 9.88, P = 0.002; LRS, 2(1) = 21.42, P < 0.001; Fig. 3), and the genetic correlations between condition and LSP and between condition and LRS were 0.009 (s.e. = 0.151) and -0.066 (s.e. =" 0.265), respectively: neither of these correlations was significantly different from zero. Figure 3 Associations between key life history traits and estimated breeding values (EBVs) for condition. Full legend High resolution image and legend (58k) An alternative explanation for the apparent paradox "the absence of any evolutionary change despite significant directional selection on a heritable trait?lies in the possibility of change in environmental conditions over the study period5, 6. This explanation runs parallel to that suggested to account for the apparent lack of genetic differentiation across environmental gradients when such differentiation is expected?a phenomenon referred to as countergradient variation16 (Fig. 4a). Countergradient variation is defined as a negative covariance between the environmental and genetic influences on a given trait across some environmental gradient, and it can effectively conceal genetic differentiation when the environmental influence is sufficiently strong16. In the context of the current study the countergradient hypothesis would predict that, at the genotypic level, there should be a positive correlation between year of the study and condition index. Using estimated breeding values we found that the mean estimated breeding value had indeed increased over the course of the study (linear regression of annual means: b = 0.0022, s.e. = 0.0009, t15 = 2.38, P = 0.030; GLMM of individual values: b = 0.0023, s.e. = 0.0008, t16,057 = 2.70, P = 0.007; Fig. 2b). Hence, despite the negative trend at the phenotypic level (Fig. 2a), at the level of the genotype the population mean condition index has increased over time. Figure 4 Environmental deterioration over time. Full legend High resolution image and legend (41k) The estimated microevolutionary change has presumably been concealed by an increasingly negative influence of environmental conditions on the condition index (Fig. 4a), which has caused the phenotypic decline. The intensity of selection on the condition has increased with time (linear regression: b = 0.015, s.e. = 0.007, t17 = 1.99, P = 0.06; Fig. 1d), and fledging success has decreased with time (Fig. 4b; linear regression: b = -0.011, s.e. = 0.003, t18 = 3.19, P < 0.005). Both relationships are indicative of environmental deterioration. A plausible agent explaining this deterioration is the large-scale climatic trend that has reduced the caterpillar food supplys" "the main food of growing nestlings?over the last few decades17. Increased spring temperatures have led to increasingly poor synchronization between the hatching date of caterpillars and the date of bud-burst of the oak trees on which they feed. Estimates of the lag between caterpillar hatching date and oak bud-burst date from a Dutch study17 were positively correlated with the annual mean condition index (coefficient of correlation r = 0.613, test statistic z17 = 2.76, P = 0.0057; Fig. 4c), tarsus length (r = 0.621, z17 = 2.89, P = 0.0021) and fledging success (r = 0.531, z17 = 2.82, P = 0.0049; Fig. 4d) of collared flycatchers on Gotland. Because the degree of synchrony between caterpillar emergence and bud-burst dates is driven by large-scale climatic phenomena17, such correlations can be expected to occur across continental scales. Increased intra- and interspecific competition, both of which lower condition in this18, 19 and other bird populations20 are other potential, but perhaps less likely, explanations for the decline in reproductive success and condition observed in this study. In conclusion, in accordance with data from studies of spatial genetic differentiation16, our results show that microevolutionary transitions at the genotypic level need not necessarily be manifested at the phenotypic level16, and that an apparent lack of evolutionary response in a heritable trait subject to directional natural selection can be understood in terms of the environment masking genotypic evolution, rather than selection on environmental deviations only3. Alternative explanations for the lack of selection response (that is, biased heritability estimates, negative genetic correlations between the focal trait and other components of fitness, reversed direction of selection on later life stages) could be excluded on the basis of detailed analysis using new methods. To this end, our results concur with the view21, 22 that many evolutionary transitions may consist of changes not visible at the level of the phenotype. Methods The data The material for this study was collected between 1980 and 1999 from a nest-box-breeding collared flycatcher population inhabiting the island of Gotland, off the Swedish east coast in the Baltic sea. All breeding attempts were monitored from the date of egg-laying until all nestlings had fledged. When 12 days old, nestlings were measured for tarsus length with digital calipers (to nearest 0.1 mm), weighed with a Pesola spring balance (to nearest 0.1 g) and marked with individually numbered aluminium rings. At the same time, their parents were captured and their identity was checked (see refs 14 and 15 for more information on collection procedures). Condition index was estimated as the residuals from a linear regression of body mass at fledging on tarsus length (see refs 10 and 14 for details and analysis of linearity of this relationship). Data were available for 4,888 breeding attempts involving 23,336 individuals. Because the sexes do not differ in growth patterns or condition at fledging23, data on both sexes were analysed together (with one exception: see below). Breeding attempts subject to manipulative experiments were excluded from the analyses. Quantitative genetic analyses Heritability of condition and individual breeding values were estimated through a mixed model restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation procedure using the software packages VCE24 and PEST25. An individual 'animal model' was fitted, in which an individual's phenotypic value of condition was broken down into components of additive genetic value and other random and fixed effects7, 26. The area of the study site and the year were included as random effects to account for spatial and temporal heterogeneity in environmental effects on phenotype. Nest-box identity was also fitted as a random effect to account for further common-environment effects specific to the individual brood; this term will incorporate any non-genetic maternal effects. The only fixed effect in the model was a population mean. The narrow-sense heritability (h2) was estimated as the ratio of the additive genetic variance (VA) to the total phenotypic variance (VP): h2 = VA/VP. Best linear unbiased predictors (BLUP) of individual breeding values were quantified from pedigree information using REML estimates of variance components, with the software package PEST25. BLUP estimates of breeding values (EBVs) are unbiased even in populations under selection, or exhibiting assortative mating, and estimates from different generations will reflect changes in additive genetic effects resulting from selection, genetic drift or inbreeding7. With an annual breeding population size in excess of 1,500 pairs, the occurrence of genetic drift in this population is unlikely. Calculation of inbreeding coefficients (IBCs) revealed that only 0.5% of pairings resulted in individuals with an IBC greater than 0, and there was no evidence for between-year heterogeneity in IBCs (Kruskal?Wallis H18 = 15.15, P = 0.65; estimated using Pedigree Viewer, available from http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~bkinghor/pedigree.htm). Changes in EBVs across generations can therefore be taken as evidence of a response to selection, or 'genetic trend'27, 28. Genetic correlations were estimated from a multivariate animal model analysis of fledgling condition, life-span (LSP; in years) and lifetime reproductive success (LRS; defined as the number of offspring recruited into the breeding population). Genetic correlation analyses were necessarily restricted to individuals surviving to adulthood; area and year were included as random effects, and sex (known for individuals recaptured as adults) as a fixed effect. Selection analyses Estimates of survival selection on phenotypic and estimated breeding values of condition index were based on recapture data under the assumption that nestlings not returning to the study area in subsequent years had died. As many of the individuals recruit to the population at the age of two years, the survival analyses were restricted to the period of 1981?1998. Standardized directional (S) and quadratic (c2) selection differentials were estimated by linear regression of relative fitness on standardized (zero mean, unit variance) phenotypic or breeding values of the condition index using standard methods29. Statistical significance of the selection differentials was estimated with logistic regression29. Associations between individual LSP or LRS and EBVs for condition were tested using GLMMs with negative binomial error structure, using the procedure IRREML in Genstat30. Nest of origin, year and area were included as random effects in the model, to account for repeated measures. The significance of the fixed effect of condition breeding value as a predictor of LSP or LRS was assessed by the Wald statistic, distributed as 2(1) (ref. 30). Received 26 February 2001;accepted 14 May 2001 References 1. Grant, P. R. & Grant, B. R. Predicting microevolutionary responses to directional selection on heritable variation. Evolution 49, 241-251 (1995). 2. Reznick, D. N., Shaw, F. H., Rodd, F. H. & Shaw, R. G. Evaluation of the rate of evolution in a natural population of guppies. Science 275, 1934-1937 (1997). | Article | PubMed | 3. Price, T., Kirkpatrick, M. & Arnold, S. J. Directional selection and the evolution of breeding date in birds. Science 240, 798-799 (1988). | PubMed | 4. Alatalo, R. V., Gustafsson, L. & Lundberg, A. Phenotypic selection on heritable size traits: environmental variance and genetic response. Am. Nat. 135, 464-471 (1990). 5. Cooke, F., Taylor, P. D., Frances, C. M. & Rockwell, R. F. Directional selection and clutch size in birds. Am. Nat. 136, 261-267 (1990). 6. Frank, S. A. & Slatkin, M. Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 92-95 (1992). 7. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1998). 8. Roff, D. A. Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics (Chapman & Hall, New York, 1997). 9. Hochachka, W. & Smith, J. N. Determinants and consequences of nestling condition in song sparrows. J. Anim. Ecol. 60, 995-1008 (1991). 10. Lind?n, M., Gustafsson, L. & P?rt, T. Selection of fledging mass in the collared flycatcher and the great tit. Ecology 73, 336-343 (1992). 11. Both, C., Visser, M. E. & Verboven, N. Density-dependent recruitment rates in great tits: the importance of being heavier. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 465-469 (1999). | Article | 12. Sorci, G. & Clobert, J. Natural selection on hatching body size and mass in two environments in the common lizard (Lacerta vivipara). Evol. Ecol. Res. 1, 303-316 (1999). 13. Boltnev, A. I., York, A. E. & Antonelis, G. A. Northern fur seal young: interrelationships among birth size, growth, and survival. Can. J. Zool. 76, 843-854 (1998). | Article | 14. Meril?, J. Genetic variation in offspring condition--an experiment. Funct. Ecol. 10, 465-474 (1996). 15. Meril?, J., Kruuk, L. E. B. & Sheldon, B. C. Natural selection on the genetical component of body condition in a wild bird population. J. Evol. Biol. (submitted). 16. Conover, D. O. & Schultz, E. T. Phenotypic similarity and the evolutionary significance of countergradient variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 248-252 (1995). 17. Visser, M. E. & Holleman, L. J. M. Warmer springs disrupt the synchrony of oak and winter moth phenology. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 289-294 (2001). | Article | PubMed | 18. Gustafsson, L. Inter- and intraspecific competition for nest holes in a population of the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis. Ibis 130, 11-16 (1988). 19. Doligez, B., Danchin, E., Clobert, J. & Gustafsson, L. The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding habitat selection in a non-colonial, hole-nesting species, the collared flycatcher. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 1193-1206 (2000). | Article | 20. Alatalo, R. V. & Lundberg, A. Density-dependence in breeding success of the pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca). J. Anim. Ecol. 53, 969-978 (1984). 21. Lewontin, R. C. Adaptation. Sci. Am. 239, 212-230 (1978). | PubMed | 22. Gilchrist, A. S. & Partridge, L. A comparison of the genetic basis of wing size divergence in three parallel body size clines of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 153, 1775-1787 (1999). | PubMed | 23. Sheldon, B. C., Meril?, J., Lindgren, G. & Ellegren, H. Gender and environmental sensitivity in nestling collared flycatchers. Ecology 79, 1939-1948 (1998). 24. Groeneveld, E. REML VCE, a Multivariate Multi-Model Restricted Maximum Likelihood (Co)Variance Component Estimation Package, Version 3.2 User's Guide. (Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Behaviour, Federal Research Center of Agriculture (FAL), Mariensee, Germany, 1995). http://www.tzv.fal.de/institut/genetik/pub/eg/vce/manual/manual.html 25. Groeneveld, E., Kovac, M., Wang, T. L. & Fernando, R. L. Computing algorithms in a general purpose BLUP package for multivariate prediction and estimation. Arch. Anim. Breed. 15, 399-412 (1992). 26. Meyer, K. Restricted maximum-likelihood to estimate variance components for animal models with several random effects using a derivative-free algorithm. Genet. Selection Evol. 21, 317-340 (1989). 27. Blair, H. T. & Pollak, E. J. Estimation of genetic trend in a selected population with and without the use of a control population. J. Anim. Sci. 58, 878-886 (1984). | PubMed | 28. Southwood, O. I. & Kennedy, B. W. Genetic and environmental trends for litter size in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 69, 3177-3182 (1991). | PubMed | 29. Meril?, J., Sheldon, B. C. & Ellegren, H. Antagonistic natural selection revealed by molecular sex identification of nestling collared flycatchers. Mol. Ecol. 6, 1167-1175 (1997). 30. Genstat, 1998. Genstat 5, Release 4.1 (Lawes Agricultural Trust, IACR, Rothamsted, 1998). Acknowledgements. We thank I. P. F. Owens, A. J. van Noordwijk, B. Walsh and D. A. Roff for comments on the manuscript, M. Visser for data on caterpillars and oaks, and the numerous people who have helped in collecting the data in the course of the study, in particular L. Gustafsson. Our research was supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council, the Nordic Academy for the Advanced Study (J.M.) and by Royal Society University Research Fellowships to B.C.S. and L.E.B.K. Nature ? Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2001 Registered No. 785998 England. _Retrieved from the World Wide WebJune 13, 2003 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5623/1246?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hi ts=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=ALU+transposons&searchid=1055484085580_14300&stor ed_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=6/30/2003 GENOMICS: Not Junk After All Wojciech Makalowski Science 2003 May 23; 300: 1246-1247. (in Perspectives) Not Junk After All Wojciech Makalowski* From bacteria to mammals, the DNA content of genomes has increased by about three orders of magnitude in just 3 billion years of evolution (1). Early DNA association studies showed that the human genome is full of repeated segments, such as Alu elements, that are repeated hundreds of thousands of times (2). The vast majority of a mammalian genome does not code for proteins. So, the question is, "Why do we need so much DNA?" Most researchers have assumed that repetitive DNA elements do not have any function: They are simply useless, selfish DNA sequences that proliferate in our genome, making as many copies as possible. The late Sozumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA" to describe these repetitive elements. On page 1288 of this issue, Lev-Maor and colleagues (3) take junk DNA to new heights with their analysis of how Alu elements in the introns of human genes end up in the coding exons, and in so doing influence evolution. Although catchy, the term "junk DNA" for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure (4, 5). Genomes are dynamic entities: New functional elements appear and old ones become extinct. It appears that transposable elements are not useless DNA. They interact with the surrounding genomic environment and increase the ability of the organism to evolve. They do this by serving as recombination hotspots, and providing a mechanism for genomic shuffling and a source of "ready-to-use" motifs for new transcriptional regulatory elements, polyadenylation signals, and protein-coding sequences. The last of these is especially exciting because it has a direct influence on protein evolution. More than a decade ago, Mitchell et al. showed that a point mutation in an Alu element residing in the third intron of the ornithine aminotransferase gene activated a cryptic splice site, and consequently led to the introduction of a partial Alu element into an open reading frame (6). The in-frame stop codon carried by the Alu element resulted in a truncated protein and ornithine aminotransferase deficiency. This discovery led to the hypothesis that a similar mechanism may result in fast evolutionary changes in protein structure and increased protein variability (7). Several genome-wide investigations have shown that all types of mobile elements in all vertebrate genomes can be used in this way. The unsolved mystery is how a genome adapts to the drastic changes conferred on a protein by the insertion of a mobile element into the coding region of its gene. Lev-Maor and co-workers and a second group now demonstrate how this process takes place without disturbing the function of the original protein (see the figure) (3, 8). Figure 1 Junk DNA caught in the act. Two ways in which a repetitive DNA element, such as an Alu element, can be incorporated into the coding region of a gene without destroying the gene's function. (Top) A TE-cassette is inserted into the mRNA as an alternative exon. (Bottom) Insertion of a TE-cassette is preceded by a gene duplication. In both cases, the genome gains two forms of the mRNA transcript--one with and one without the TE-cassette. Last year, Sorek et al. (9) noticed that about 5% of alternatively spliced internal exons in the human genome originate in an Alu sequence. Interestingly, because Alu elements are primate specific, these exons must be primate or human specific as well as much younger than other exons in a gene. Additionally, they noticed that the vast majority of "Alu exons" are alternatively spliced (that is, there is always another messenger RNA without the Alu element in the coding region). They concluded that "Alu elements have the evolutionary potential to enhance the coding capacity and regulatory versatility of the genome without compromising its integrity" (9). In their new work, this group now shows how alternative splicing of Alu exons is regulated (3). It is well established that the precise selection of the 3' splice site depends on the distance between the branch point site (BPS) and the AG dinucleotide downstream of the BPS. The optimal distance between the BPS and the AG dinucleotide is relatively narrow (19 to 23 nucleotides). Interestingly, if there is another AG dinucleotide closer to the BPS, it will be recognized by a spliceosome even if a second AG located more optimally is used in the transesterification reaction (10). A splicing factor, hSlu7, is required to facilitate recognition of the correct AG. Thus, the correct selection of the 3' splice site is an interplay between AG dinucleotides and certain splicing factors. It is even more tricky to maintain the delicate balance of signals that cause an exon to be spliced alternatively--you make one mistake (a point mutation) and either a splicing signal becomes too strong and an exon is spliced constitutively, or the signal becomes too weak and an exon is skipped. Lev-Maor and colleagues (3) performed a series of experiments to identify an ideal sequence signal surrounding the 3' splice site within the Alu element that kept the Alu element alternatively spliced. It appears that in addition to the distance between two AG dinucleotides, a nucleotide immediately upstream of proximal AG is also important. Hence, a proximal GAG sequence serves as a signal weak enough to create an alternatively spliced Alu exon. Any mutation of a proximal GAG in the first position results in a constitutive Alu exon. This is an important observation because most of the more than 1 million Alu elements populating the human genome contain such a potential 3' splice site. Of these, 238,000 are located within introns of protein-coding genes, and each one can become an exon. Unfortunately, most mutations will lead to abnormal proteins and are likely to result in disease. Yet a small number may create an evolutionary novelty, and nature's "alternative splicing approach" guarantees that such a novelty may be tested while the original protein stays intact. Another way to exploit an evolutionary novelty without disturbing the function of the original protein is gene duplication (see the figure). Gene duplication is one of the major ways in which organisms can generate new genes (11). After a gene duplication, one copy maintains its original function whereas the other is free to evolve and can be used for "nature's experiments." Usually, this is accomplished through point mutations and the whole process is very slow. However, recycling some modules that already exist in a genome (for example, in transposons) can speed up the natural mutagenesis process tremendously. Several years ago, Iwashita and colleagues discovered a bovine gene containing a piece of a transposable element (called a TE-cassette) in the middle of its open reading frame (12). This cassette contributes a whole new domain to the bovine BCNT protein, namely an endonuclease domain native to the ruminant retrotransposable element-1 (RTE-1). Interestingly, the human and mouse homologs of bovine BCNT lack the endonuclease domain but instead contain a different one at their carboxyl terminus. This raised two questions: When did the BCNT protein acquire the endonuclease domain, and how did the bovine genome manage such a drastic rearrangement of BCNT without losing its fitness? Iwashita et al. give the answers to both questions in their new study (8). They discovered another copy of the bovine bcnt gene that resembles mammalian bcnt homologs (also called CFDP1) just six kilobases downstream of the gene with the TE-cassette. Both copies of the gene are apparently expressed and both proteins are functional. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that shortly after gene duplication in the ruminant lineage, one of the copies acquired an endonuclease domain from an RTE-1 retrotransposon. Not surprisingly, this gene undergoes accelerated evolution. The reports by Lev-Maor et al. and Iwashita and colleagues describe different ways in which genes can be rapidly rearranged and acquire evolutionary novelty through the use of so-called junk DNA. These discoveries wouldn't be so exciting if they didn't show how genomes achieve this without disturbing an original protein. To quote an old Polish proverb: "A wolf is sated and a lamb survived." These two papers demonstrate that repetitive elements are not useless junk DNA but rather are important, integral components of eukaryotic genomes. Risking personification of biological processes, we can say that evolution is too wise to waste this valuable information. Therefore, repetitive DNA should be called not junk DNA but a genomic scrapyard, because it is a reservoir of ready-to-use segments for nature's evolutionary experiments (13). References 1. M. Nei, Nature 221, 40 (1969) [Medline]. 2. R. Britten, D. Kohne, Science 161, 529 (1968) [Medline]. 3. G. Lev-Maor, R. Sorek, N. Shomron, G. Ast, Science 300, 1288 (2003). 4. J. Brosius, Science 251, 753 (1991) [Medline]. 5. R. Nowak, Science 263, 608 (1994) [Medline]. 6. G. A. Mitchell et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88, 815 (1991) [Medline]. 7. W. Makalowski, G. A. Mitchell, D. Labuda, Trends Genet. 10, 188 (1994) [Medline]. 8. S. Iwashita et al., Mol. Biol. Evol., in press. 9. R. Sorek, G. Ast, D. Graur, Genome Res. 12, 1060 (2002) [Medline]. 10. K. Chua, R. Reed, Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 1509 (2001) [Medline]. 11. S. Ohno, Evolution by Gene Duplication (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970). 12. T. Nobukuni et al., J. Biol. Chem. 272, 2801 (1997) [Medline]. 13. W. Makalowski, Gene 259, 61 (2000) [Medline]. The author is at the Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics and Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, PA 16802, USA. E-mail: wojtek at psu.edu 10.1126/science.1085690 Include this information when citing this paper. Summary of this Article PDF Version of this Article dEbates: Submit a response to this article Related commentary and articles in Science products Download to Citation Manager Alert me when: new articles cite this article Search for similar articles in: Science Online ISI Web of Science PubMed Search Medline for articles by: Makalowski, W. This article appears in the following Subject Collections: Genetics Related articles in Science: The Birth of an Alternatively Spliced Exon: 3' Splice-Site Selection in Alu Exons Galit Lev-Maor, Rotem Sorek, Noam Shomron, and Gil Ast Science 2003 300: 1288-1291. (in Reports) [Abstract] [Full Text] Volume 300, Number 5623, Issue of 23 May 2003, pp. 1246-1247. Copyright ? 2003 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. _________ Science. All rights reserved. _________ Retrieved December 16, 2002, from the World Wide Web http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/villarreal/new1/erv-placental.html The following is a detailed and referenced document. The Viruses That Make Us: A Role For Endogenous Retrovirus In The Evolution Of Placental Species by Luis P. Villarreal Chromosome evolution, higher order and parasitic elements. With the accumulation of genomic sequence data, certain unexplained patterns of genome evolution have begun to emerge. One striking observation is the general tendency of genomes of higher organisms to evolve an ever decreasing gene density with higher order. For example, E. Coli has a gene density of about 2 Kb per gene, Drosophila 4 Kb per gene and mammalian about 30 Kb per gene. Much of the decreased density is due to the increase in the accumulation of non-coding or 'parasitic DNA' elements, such as type one and two transposons. Current evolutionary theory does not adequately account for this observation (81). In addition mammals appear to have retained the presence of at least some copies of non-defective 'genomic retroviruses', such as intercysternal A-type particles (IAP's) or endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), (51,85). It is currently difficult to account for the selective pressure that retains these genomic viruses, since they often lack similarity to existing free autonomous retroviruses. It is widely accepted that viral agents act a negative selecting force on their host. However, viral agents have very high mutation and adaption rates. This character led Salvador Luria to speculate early on that perhaps viruses contribute to host evolution (52). There is now sufficient evidence to suggest that horizontally transmitted agents and gene sets allow the rapid adaption of various living systems, including bacteria, yeast, drosophila and hymenoptera. 'Pathogenic islands' are contiguous regions of DNA that contain gene sets in bacteria that appear to be horizontally acquired and can exist as either prophage, episomes or genomic sequences (21). These pathogenic islands appear to account for much of the rapid adaptability in bacteria. Transposons of Drosophila appear to require horizontal transmission in order to be maintained during evolution and appear to have been the underlying mechanism of hybrid dysgenesis (10). The parasitioid wasp species (hymenoptera) maintain genomic polydnaviruses in most species which are highly produced into non-replicating viral forms during egg development and subsequently suppress host larval immunity making them essential for egg survival (47,74). Thus horizontally transmitted genetic elements are common in the genomes of all species. The mammalian chromosome presents an especially interesting case of accumulation of 'parasitic' DNA. All placental species have unique LINE elements present at very high abundance as well as other related and even more abundant elements, such as the SINES or primate specific alu elements (see (70) for references). Yet there appears to be no common progenitor to these elements. All these elements appear to be products of reverse transcription of cellular RNA's however, there is no explanation for the conservation to RT activity in mammals. Although endogenous retroviruses are found in most organisms prior to mammalian radiation, the levels of these genomic agents is relatively low in non-mammals and the nature of retroposons seems distinct form that in mammalian. Mammalian LINES, for example lack a precise 5' end, have no poly-A 3' end, and lack RT coding regions that are characteristic of all LINE elements as opposed to avian or other retroposon elements of vertebrates that do not have these features. Why are mammalian (eutherian) chromosomes especially so full of these RT derived agents? What selects for their generation or retention? A genomic retrovirus: essential for placentals? In a proposal published in 1997, I raised the issue of endogenous retrovirus and proposed that these viruses are essential to the biology of Eutherians. Viviparous mammals confront an immunological dilemma in that mammals which have highly adaptive immune systems fail to recognize their own allogenic embryos (58). The relationship of mammalian mother to her fetus resembles that of a parasite and host in that the fetus 'parasite' must be able to suppress the immune response of the 'host' mother in order to survive. As viviparous mammals are also noteworthy for having genomes that are highly infected with endogenous retroviruses and as retroviruses are generally immunosuppressive, the possible participation of endogenous retroviruses in the immunosuppression by the embryo was then considered. In addition, it was considered if such endogenous viruses might be more broadly involved in the evolution of their host and the resulting host genome that now appear to have many derivatives (such retrotransposons and as LINE elements) of such genomic viruses. This grant application seeks support to do an experimental evaluation in a mouse model of the proposed involvement of endogenous retroviruses in the immunologically escape by the embryo in the mother. I argue that endogenous retrovirus is hence essential for the biology of non-egg laying placental mammals. This study could provide evidence of the biological function of endogenous retroviruses and also address the broader issues concerning the possible contribution of genomic virus to host genome evolution. The dilemma of viviparous mammals and their allogeneic embryos. This mammalian dilemma was clearly stated by Medawar in the early 1950's, see (31,50). Since then, this dilemma has remained one of the most vexing and persisting problems in immunology. An array of models have since been proposed attempting to explain this situation. These include a limited embryonic expression and presentation of MHC class I or class II antigen ((88) or expression of alternative MHC, HLA I-G, (40), or a high hydrocortisone hormonal suppression of immunity, and more recently the possible role of Fas L embryonic expression in ablating T-cell recognition of the embryo (66). All of these models, though with some support, have significant problems. Inflammatory reactions, which appear to be involved in embryo rejection (see below) would not be checked by low MHC expression. Lowered MHC I expression would also be expected to elicit a natural killer cell response, which appears to be important in embryo implantation (41), although the human embryo specific alternative MHC gene, HLA-IG, could substitute for MHC I to negatively regulate NK activity. Up regulated expression of Class I MHC by interferon does not allow CTL killing of trophoblasts suggesting that trophoblast actively inhibit CTL killing (for references, see (26)). Also, humans with deficient beta-2 microglobulin do not express HLA-IG yet the fetus comes to term indicating HLA-IG is not essential for implantation (James Cross, personal communication). In addition, other species, such as mouse have no analogue of the HLA-IG antigen, which suggest this antigen cannot be a general solution to the immunological dilemma of viviparous species. Fas null mice, although displaying defects in peripheral clonal immune selection, allow implantation of embryos (1). General immune suppression, such as hydrocortisone cannot explain the relatively normal immune response in pregnant mothers to many agents or elevated level of TH2 reactive cells (which are important for mucosal macroparasite elimination) seen in pregnant woman, see T. Mossman, (49). Also, the glucocorticoid effect may be mediated via the p15E-like gene of endogenous retrovirus (20). In addition, it is interesting to note that autoimmunity, such as rheumatoid arthritis can often abate during pregnancy suggesting an altered immunity that appears not mediated via hormones (Fackelman, Science News 144:260). Most effective immune reactions appear to be of a rather local nature. Therefore local suppression seems a likely way to regulate embryo immune recognition. Although TH1 reactivity in pregnancy is weak, the TH2 response, which is important for inflammatory like reactions, is not decreased and is possibly enhanced (T. Mossman). Neither the MHC model, nor the Fas-Fas ligand model can account to the failure to initiate an inflammatory reaction or NK activity against the embryo (activated NK cells can reject xenografts (41)) The Role of Mucosal Uterine Macrophages or NK cells Embryo implantation occurs in the mucosal epithelial tissues of the uterus. Like most mucosal surfaces, the uterus has a high abundance of macrophages (37,70) and NK cells (41). Once activated, these cells should respond vigorously to parasites or allogeneic tissues and reject xenografts. The regulation of these cells and their subsequent inflammatory reaction and induction of the adaptive immune response involves IL-1 beta, IL-6, TGF beta-1, TNF-alpha, CSF-1 (26,88). The uterus appears to present an immunologically tolerant site as grafts into the uterus of pregnant rats have prolonged survival relative to other locations, see (5) for review. Macrophages are central to the initiation of innate and subsequent adaptive immune responses (18). Although most macrophages can act as immunostimulatory cells, evidence suggest that uterine macrophages can make immunosuppressive molecules. For example, despite MHC II display, uterine macrophages don't present antigens to T-cells (44). Other results suggest that uterine macrophages can contribute to embryo loss. Preterm mouse delivery is associated with high levels of macrophage derived IL-1-beta, IL-6, TNF- a . High rates of early embryo loss can be associated with the specific mouse strains that are mated in that low rates of embryo loss can sometimes be seen with inbred crossings, whereas some outbred crossings can show higher embryo loss rates. For example, crosses between CBA/J X DBA/2 are prone to early embryo loss relative to inbred crosses which is enhanced by IFN induction (27). This breeding associated embryo loss is also linked with inflammation and iNO production by local decidual macrophages (27) as inhibition of macrophage iNO enhanced litter size. Macrophage iNO inactivates nearby macrophages and mediates immunosuppression in inflammation via bystander lymphocyte autocytotoxicity, suggesting a way to elicit immunosuppression. The Importance of Trophoblast Role in implantation. In the implanting embryo, trophoblasts are the first cells of the egg to differentiate. Following the loss of the zona pellucida shell, trophoblast differentiate into cytotrophoblast the finally into the fused syncytiotrophoblast that forms the cell layer that directly contacts the uterus and the mothers blood system. These trophoblasts are considered a part of uterine macrophage-cytokine network (26,88). Trophoblast resemble macrophages in many of the genes that they express. Uterine macrophage produced IL-1 which may play critical role during implantation (28). Trophoblasts protect inner cell mass from macrophage destruction (69). Trophoblast can be transplanted across mouse strain barriers without being rejected suggesting they have immunosuppressive activities (38). Also, trophoblasts have a very unique pattern of gene expression in that expression is restricted to paternal (androgenic) genes while inner cell mass express maternal genes (79). This is in stark contrast to other somatic tissues where mosaic expression is observed. With trophoblast gene expression being androgenic (79,80), it seems curious that X chromosome inactivation is also paternal in trophoblast, see Renfree (61) for references. It is interesting therefore to note that female mice are less able to kill tumors bearing paternal antigens then tumors bearing maternal antigens (T. Mossman, personal communication). Trophoblasts are intriguing in an evolutionary sense as well. Other non-viviparous mammals (marsupials, monotremes) completely lack the trophoblast-syncytiotrophoblast layer, see (59) for review. Unlike viviparous mammals, marsupial gestation is short (averaging several to 12 days), their eggs are yolk-filled resembling those of reptiles and marsupial eggs are surrounded by a maternal derived shell membrane which once lost allows only minimal maternal-fetal contact for a period of only several days. Most of marsupial egg incubation is outside of mothers body and birth is associated with local inflammatory events. Marsupials also lack hormonal control of uterus or other tissues (61). Given that the trophectoderm is the first mammalian egg cell type to differentiate and the relatively recent evolutionary development of this layer in mammals, early embryos of the viviparous mammal do not seem to recapitulate evolutionary history with respect to this first cell type. Thus the trophoblastic cells appear to be centrally involved in implantation and embryo immunomodulation. Trophoblast produced ERV's. Another rather unique feature of syncytiotrophoblasts is in their ability to produce a high quantity of endogenous retroviruses , see (85). This also appears to be a general characteristic of all placental mammals. The production of endogenous retroviruses in early mammalian embryos is a long standing and often repeated observation. Multiple detections of particles in normal human embryonic cells, especially basal surface of human placental syncytiotrophoblast tissue have been frequently reported as have similar particle production in old and new world primates placentas (for early review see (84)). Normal human placentas have measurable RT activity (56) and appear to express HERV env gene (45). Primary trophoblasts of rhesus monkeys also produce ERV's (77). Furthermore, the levels of mouse virus particle production can be as high as 105 per cell (60), which exceeds by far the capacity of most permissive cell culture systems for retrovirus production. In addition, these endogenous retrovirus particles are frequently made following induction in testicular teratocarcinoma which constitute a HERV (Human Endogenous Retrovirus) group, similar to C-type particle (85). In addition, antibody studies have established that CTL reactive to ERV proteins can be found in most pregnant woman as can immuno-precipitation reactivity to p28, p15 and p15E (for references see (85), p. 86-87). Interestingly, RD114 cross-reactive antibodies were significantly correlated with complications during pregnancy and with prior abortions and stillbirths (78). In humans, these trophectoderm expressed HERV's represent two large diverse multi copy families HERV-R and HERV-K., the latter is capable of expressing the env and p15E gene products in vaccinia vectors (83). Thus, endogenous retrovirus are mainly isolated from reproductive embryonic tissues but to a lesser extent from circulating lymphocytes or monocytes of some mouse strains (42). These viruses are highly suppressed in most somatic tissues probably due to DNA methylation, (see below). However, these viruses do not seem transmissible in usual sense of leading to productive infections. Nondefective endogenous retroviruses are conserved and expressed in trophoblast HERVs constitute about 0.6% of the human genome and appear more related to rodent viruses than any known human viruses. The great majority of these endogenous viruses are defective and deleted of various gene products, especially the env gene but also gag/pol. For an early review of the human endogenous retroviruses see (46). Initially, it was felt that there all copies of HERV's in the genome were defective, but it subsequently became clear that highly conserved non-defective copies also exist at low levels (see Urnovitz (85) table 6 , p.93 for refs.). For example, the HERV-K sequence of the human teratocarcinoma derived virus type (HTDV), is reported to be able to make retrovirus like particle and can express gag, pol and env genes via vectors (83). Also, ERV 3 can express env gene in embryonic placental tissues (45). Such reports may now explain the numerous early observations of being able to find viral particles in human tissues (13), (see (33) for early references). Although some HERV's are expressed in mammary tumors, the feline RD114, ERV-3, and HERV K10+ are all expressed in placental tissues. What then is the significance of nondefective ERVs and why is expression so common in embryos? There has developed a confusing system of nomenclature and corresponding phylogenetics of ERVs due to multiple names for similar viral sequences. In addition, sequences from several ERV's appear to be made up of mosaic elements such that different relationship will be apparent when different parts (e.g. gag/pol vs env) are analyzed as seen with HERV-K10+, which can add to confusion (85). A relatively clear system of nomenclature has been presented by Urnovitz and Murphy (85). They propose HERV's can be classified according to established non-defective endogenous viruses. For example, both the ERV-1 (with a deleted env region) and the single copy ERV-3 (which can p lacentally express an intact env gene) are also called HERV-R (45) can be classified as ERV-3 derivatives. Accordingly, the defective HERV-K10 with deleted env, or the non-defective full length HERV-K10+ and the HERV K(C4), are thus related to HERV-K10+. In addition, RTLV-H, in which most copies are pol defective but is also expressed in embryonic tissues and also has an env gene (32), is present as a low copy nondefective copy; RTLV-Hp. Interestingly, this RTLV-Hp sequence appears to have been conserved phylogenetically (via neutral codon substitutions) and implies that it belongs to a functional and selected subclass of highly retained ERV's (89). This classification method allows clearer identification of highly conserved and intact ERVs. What could an ERV function be for the host cell? I (68) and Venables et al. in the Boyd group (8,86) have proposed that some of these HERV's may function during embryo implantation to help prevent immune recognition by the mother's immune system. Immunological activity of ERV (IAP) genes Most retroviruses appear to be generally immunosuppressive of the host immune system (for review see (25)). The immunosuppressive nature of retroviruses was first investigated in detail with feline leukemia virus of domestic cats (FeLV) and led to the identification of the CKS-17 hydrophobic transmembrane domain of the env gene as an important immune modulator. This domain is present in the highly conserved p15E peptide which maintains the immunosuppressive character, for review see (30). A main effect of p15E is to inhibit T-cells via cytokine (TNF and IFN ) mediated processes (29) and can be elicited by synthetic or recombinant p15E (65,67). p15E also inhibits mononuclear phagocyte chemotaxis (85). Thus the env gene is a primary candidate of an ERV gene product that could modulate the mother's immune recognition, which fits well with its proposed role in syncytiotrophoblast expression. In addition, the ERV gag gene product may also be immuno-modulatory. The p70 (gag) of mouse IAP has been cloned and expressed and shown to be identical to IgE binding factor (IgE-BF) which is a regulator of B-cell ability to produce IgH (43,54). More recently, it has been reported that endogenous gag is Fv-1, an-Herv.L like endogenous virus which confers resistance to MLV tumors (7). Although some researchers disagree with the immunomodulatory role of p15E, an immune suppressing activity in culture assays has been clearly established. These supporting results seem sufficiently clear to warrant a serious investigation that both the env and gag gene products of ERV's may modulate immunity. ERV's and placental macrophages If non-defective ERV gene (env) products are indeed immuno-modulatory, we can now offer explanations for various other observations. For one, env expression should be highly selected for in the early embryo (hence the conserved single intact copy), but strongly counter selected for expression in ectopic sites which would render these genes inappropriately immunosuppressive. Therefore most transposed copies of ERV's would be expected to be under selection to lose the env gene, as is observed. Also, ERV expression is somatic tissue is generally highly repressed, also as expected from this model. In addition, it can be expected that the main target of ERV action would be the local immune cells of the uterus. A likely cell type to affect would be the uterine macrophages. Given the central role of innate immune modulators (18) and macrophages (2) in the induction of the acquired immune response, uterine macrophages and the cytokines they effect seems a likely candidate to target for embryo immune regulation. However, there is no evidence that ERV's are transmitted in a productive manner. We therefore might expect the trophectoderm derived ERV's act more like a replication defective recombinant retrovirus that is able to effect locally exposed cells, but not replicate and transmit to other cells (see (87). This would mean that these ERV's are essentially local acting agents. Thus a central unanswered question is what effect IAP producing trophoblasts have on nearby macrophages, especially with respect to a macrophage's role in innate and acquired immune function. Of some relevance to this issue are reports glucocorticoid mediates increased Mtv env (p15E) expression in P388D1 macrophage and T-like mouse line (20). Such cell systems could be used experimentally to examine possible role of env in immune modulation. One seemingly contradictory observation concerning the above proposal is that normal embryo development appears to occur in the presence of inhibitors of reverse transcriptase, AZT, such as in AZT treated HIV infected mothers which generally produce normal offspring. If the embryo produced ERV's are needed for immune modulation, it seems likely that embryo's would be immunologically rejected if RT inhibitors prevent the production of ERV's. However, early embryo development is severely affected by AZT, see (82). AZT will efficiently inhibit normal embryo's at post fertilization but preimplantation stages. AZT is toxic to early embryos at before blastocyst stage however, but it is not toxic at post blastocyst implantation stage (82). The possibility that embryos were being rejected by the mother's immune system was not examined in these studies. An additional consideration concerning the possible use of RT inhibitors is that because the ERV's are being produced in the trophectoderm from genomic copies of virus, RT inhibitors are not expected to inhibit trophectoderm produced ERV's as viral genomes are already integrated as DNA (88). Support for this comes from HIV studies showing that AZT did not inhibit HIV gene expression in infected placental trophoblasts. However, it might be predicted that local immune cells, such as uterine monocytes or macrophages, might not be properly 'reprogrammed' to immune nonrecognition by ERV's infection as the integration step in these cells would be inhibited. Once these macrophages were reprogrammed by ERV infection, their 'anergic' state could persist rendering them resistant to further RT inhibitors as long as the cells live, which is seldom known for these cell types. Clearly, this issue should be examined experimentally. IAPs and cancer IAP expression, although normally highly repressed, is often observed in various tumor tissues (14,15,90). If these ERVs are a normal host system of immune modulation as I have proposed, it could be expected that tumors would select for the expression of immuno-modulatory ERV or ERV gene products (such as p15E) in order to avoid immuno-surveillance. Early reports presented evidence that p15E is made in many human breast cancers (73). This suggest that tumor cells might also be used as an experimental system in which to examine this issue. In some tumors, there appears to be interesting converse links between IAP expression and tumor recognition. BL6 melanoma normally make high levels of IAP and do not express H-2kLd . IAP production can affect IgE production and is conversely is lost when MHC-I H-2kLd ,and H-2kLb but not H-2Dd H-2Ld is transfected into BL6 cells (48). Also, P15E-like proteins in serum, urine and tumor effusions of cancer patients suppress immune responses that can be reversed by anti-p15E antibody (71,73). ERV (IAP) genetics and implications for the functional subsets. Because human and mouse ERV's are present at about 900 copies per haploid genome, a genetic analysis would appear to present a daunting if not impossible task. For example, gene knockout experiments in mice, which have been so valuable at elucidating gene function, would seem not possible in the context of IAPs. However, intact env genes are sometimes present at much lower levels, and in some cases as single copies (ERV-3). It seems likely that this limited subset is the functional set that might be important. ERV-3 seems like a very good candidate that could provide immunosuppressive barrier between human mother and fetus as it has highly expressed env in syncytiotrophoblasts, expresses antigens that react to antibodies specific to the transmembrane domain (p15E-like), and is present as a complete, single copy sequence on chromosome 7, (Larsson, '97 NEED THIS) (86). Other good candidate human ERV's are the HERV-K(C4) and HERV-K which are also highly expressed in the placenta. Interestingly, Y human chromosome has lots (20) of different ERV's related to ERV3 (Kjellman, Sjogren, Widegren, '95, NEED THIS) which may code for potential HY antigens. However, what is really needed for experimental analysis is the mouse homologue to the human ERV-3. One possible functional homologue is the IAPE virus which like ERV-3, has an intact env sequence (62). In addition, this IAP env sequence appears to be expressed as a protein in NH15-CA2 cell lines suggesting a functional gene (62). The IAPE sequences, however, are complicated by the existence of about 200 copies/cell in mus musculus (63). But the IAPE-A locus seems complete and intact relative to the other IAPE's which lack gag or pol sequences and IAPE-A is present at lower levels. IAPE's are found in all lab strains (mostly Mus musculus domesticus derived) in variable and genetically unique levels that identify the strain (12), suggesting an unexplained link of inbreeding to IAPE variation. Some outbred strains, such as CE/J, had much lower levels of IAPE sequences, but maintain IAPE-A (75). These CE/J mice might offer a simpler genetic system to investigate the possible function of IAPs. Yet, mouse strains do not seem to vary much with respect to the very massive RNA levels (105 copies per cell) of early embryo expressed IAP (60). As IAPE-A is complete and it also codes for intact env sequence, this seems like a logical but untested candidate for possible trophectoderm expression. IAPE-Y is an IAPE-A so named because it has amplified on Y-chromosome. However, the Y-amplified head to tail copies are not found in all musculus species indicating that this amplification appears to be a recent evolutionary change (19). The repetitive head to tail Y-copies of IAPE are limited to only male Mus musculus domesticus and the asian Mus musculus molossinus and M. Musculus castaneus. The more distant Spanish Mus spretus lacked the repetitive copies on the Y chromosome, but conserved IAPE-A. MuRVY is genetically associated but distinct from IAPE, is also on Y and could represent a second class of trophectoderm expressed IAPs (17,19). Y condensation in most tissue (except testes Sertoli cells) probably limits expression of these IAP-Ys. However, IAPE-A expression, (also related to Hamster H-18 IAP (3)), although usually highly repressed in most tissues, may at times be expressed in some somatic (thymus) tissues of some mouse strains (42). Phylogenetic studies suggest that this env gene was under functional constrains not to evolve quickly, although the defective copies are evolving very rapidly. Thus IAPE-A seems like a good candidate for an ERV env gene involved in mouse embryo implantation. However, it has not previously been established that this env sequence is expressed in trophoblasts (see preliminary results below). The possible relevance of ES and EC cells. It has long been established that some testicular derived teratocarcinoma cells can differentiate from embryonal stem cells into several cell types (76). Of particular interest is the capacity of some EC lines to differentiate into trophectoderm. Treatment with 10-3 M retinoic acid will differentiate some of these cells into parietal trophectoderm-like cells which will eventually develop structures resembling a 3.5 day blastocyst. Thus this tissue resembles the extra-embryonic trophectoderm that is the proposed source of immunosuppressive ERV's. Along these lines, it has also long been established that differentiated (but not undifferentiated) mouse EC cells induces high levels of two distinct populations of IAPs (36). Thus at least by this parameter, EC cells my accurately model trophectoderm gene specific control. Other reports show IAP production in differentiated EC cells can be significantly reduced without affecting the ability of these cells to differentiate into trophectoderm. F9-EC cells containing integrated SV40 sequences (F912-1 cells), resulted in IAP production that was significantly reduced after differentiation. In these cells, it appears that IAP expression is tightly linked to DNA methylation and that SV40 has affected methylation without affecting cell specific expression (34). EC cell differentiation has been well characterized and many expressed sequence tags have been catalogued (57). It should therefore be possible to accurately determine if the EC differentiation program is otherwise affected by SV40 T-Ag or other regulatory proteins. Historically, EC cells were also used to study cell specific replication by polyomavirus. This led to the development of enhancer variants of polyomavirus that had increased capacity to replicate in undifferentiated EC cells. Using the enhancer/origin from Py (PyF101), Gassmann et al. with P. Berg constructed a Py T-Ag expressing plasmid (PMGD20neo) that allowed for episomal selection in ES cells (9,24). This plasmid had the interesting capacity to be stably maintained as an episome in ES cells without integration. Some of the resulting ES cell lines could then be used to make mosaic mice that also maintained the Py plasmid. Thus it seems clear that the presence of Py T-Ag expressing DNA was not detrimental to the development of most normal mouse tissues. This plasmid could offer a very useful experimental tool for the genetic analysis of ES and EC cell function (see below). Another interesting use of EC and ES cells concerns their ability to grow into masses (tumor-like) in the more immunologically privileged site of the brain. Both ES and EC cells can be differentiated into trophectoderm containing embryoid bodies. These embryos will generally grow in various transplanted sites only with immunosuppression. However, following brain implantation of embryoid bodies, ES cells will grow rapidly into large masses (91). Implantation of 2-4 cell embryos, which lack trophectoderm, however, do not grow. It seems possible that the capacity of the embryoid tissues to grow in the brain might be related to the presence of trophectoderm. If so, this might offer another useful experimental system for the analysis of a more limited immuno-modulatory function of trophectoderm and ERVs. LITERATURE CITED 1. Adachi, M., SuematsuS, T. Suda, D. Watanabe, FukuyamaH, J. Ogasawara, T. Tanaka, N. Yoshida, and S. Nagata. 1996. Enhanced and accelerated lymphoproliferation in Fas-null mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93:2131-2136. 2. Adams, D. O. and S. P. Johnson. 1992. Molecular bases of macrophage activation: regulation of class II MHC genes in tissue macrophages, p. 425-436. In R. van Furth (ed.), Mononuclear phagocytes: Biology of monocytes and macrophages. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London. 3. Aota, S., T. Gojobori, K. Shigesada, H. Ozeki, and T. Ikemura. 1987. Nucleotide sequence and molecular evolution of mouse retrovirus-like IAP elements. Gene 56:1-12. 4. Atencio, I. A., B. Belli, M. Hobbs, S. F. Cheng, L. P. Villarreal, and H. Fan. 1995. A model for mixed virus disease: co-infection with Moloney murine leukemia virus potentiates runting induced by polyomavirus (A2 strain) in Balb/c and NIH Swiss mice. Virology 212:356-366. 5. Beer, A. E. and R. E. Billingham. 1974. The embryo as a transplant. Sci. Am. 230:36-46. 6. Bernstein, A., J. E. Dick, D. Huszar, I. Robson, J. Rossant, C. Magli, Z. Estrov, M. Freedman, and R. A. Phillips. 1986. Genetic engineering of mouse and human stem cells. Cold Spring. Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 51:1083-1091. 7. Best, ,S., Le Tissier,P., Towers,G., and Stoye,J.. 1996. Positional cloning of the mouse retrovirus restriction gene Fv1. Nature 382:826-829. 8. Boyd, M. T., C. M. Bax, B. E. Bax, D. L. Bloxam, and R. A. Weiss. 1993. The human endogenous retrovirus ERV-3 is upregulated in differentiating placental trophoblast cells. Virology 196:905-909. 9. Camenisch, G., M. Gruber, G. Donoho, P. Van Sloun, R. H. Wenger, and M. Gassmann. 1996. A polyoma-based episomal vector efficiently expresses exogenous genes in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nucleic acids res. 24:3707-3713. 10. Clark, J. B. and M. G. Kidwell. 1997. A phylogenetic perspective on P transposable element evolution in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94:11428-11433. 11. Clarke, H. J., S. Varmuza, V. R. Prideaux, and J. Rossant. 1988. The development potential of parthenogenetically derived cells in chimeric mouse embryos: implications for action of imprinted genes. Development. 104:175-182. 12. Coffin, J. M. 1995. Retrovirus variation and Evolution, p. 221-244. In Geoffrey M. Cooper, Rayla Greenbeg Temin, and Bill Sugden (eds.), The DNA Provirus: Howard Temin's Scientific Legacy. American Society of Microbiology, Washington,DC. 13. Dirksen, E. R. and J. A. Levy. 1977. Virus-like particles in placentas from normal individuals and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 59:1187-1192. 14. Djaffar, I., L. Dianoux, S. Leibovich, L. Kaplan, R. Emanoil-Ravier, and J. Peries. 1990. Detection of IAP related transcripts in normal and transformed rat cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 169:222-231. 15. Doerfler, W. 1991. Patterns of DNA methylation--evolutionary vestiges of foreign DNA inactivation as a host defense mechanism. A proposal. Biol. Chem. Hoppe. Seyler. 372:557-564. 16. Doerfler, W. 1996. A new concept in (adenoviral) oncogenesis: integration of foreign DNA and its consequences. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1288:F79-F99. 17. Eicher, E. M., K. W. Hutchison, S. J. Phillips, P. K. Tucker, and B. K. Lee. 1989. A repeated segment on the mouse Y chromosome is composed of retroviral-related, Y-enriched and Y-specific sequences. Genetics 122:181-192. 18. Fearon, D. T. and R. M. Locksley. 1996. The instructive role of innate immunity in the acquired immune response. Science 272:50-53. 19. Fennelly, J., K. Harper, S. Laval, E. Wright, and M. Plumb. 1996. Co-amplification to tail-to-tail copies of MuRVY and IAPE retroviral genomes on the Mus musculus Y chromosome. Mamm. Genome. 7:31-36. 20. Fiegl, M., E. Strasser-Wozak, S. Geley, A. Gsur, J. Drach, and R. Kofler. 1995. Glucocorticoid-mediated immunomodulation: hydrocortisone enhances immunosuppressive endogenous retroviral protein (p15E) expression in mouse immune cells. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 101:259-264. 21. Finlay, B. B. and S. Falkow. 1997. Common themes in microbial pathogenicity revisited. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 61:136-169. 22. Franke-Ullmann, G., C. Pfortner, P. Walter, C. Steinmuller, M. L. Lohmann-Matthes, L. Kobzik, and J. Freihorst. 1995. Alteration of pulmonary macrophage function by respiratory syncytial virus infection in vitro. J. Immunol. 154:268-280. 23. Gallichan, W. S. and K. L. Rosenthal. 1995. Specific secretory immune responses in the female genital tract following intranasal immunization with a recombinant adenovirus expressing glycoprotein B of herpes simplex virus. Vaccine 13:1589-1595. 24. Gassmann, M., G. Donoho, and p. Berg. 1995. Maintenance of an extrachromosomal plasmid vector in mouse embryonic stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92:1292-1296. 25. Good, R. A., M. Ogasawara, W. T. Liu, E. Lorenz, and N. K. Day. 1990. Immunosuppressive actions of retroviruses. Lymphology 23:56-59. 26. Guilbert, L., S. A. Robertson, and T. G. Wegmann. 1993. The trophoblast as an integral component of a macrophage- cytokine network. Immunol. Cell Biol. 71:49-57. 27. Haddad, E. K., A. J. Duclos, W. S. Lapp, and M. G. Baines. 1997. Early embryo loss is associated with the prior expression of macrophage activation markers in the decidua. J. Immunol. 158:4886-4892. 28. Handwerger, S. 1994. A critical role for interleukin-1 (IL-1) and the type 1 IL-1 receptor in blastocyst implantation. Endocrinology 134:519-520. 29. Haraguchi, S., R. A. Good, G. J. Cianciolo, and N. K. Day. 1992. A synthetic peptide homologous to retroviral envelope protein down-regulates TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma mRNA expression. J. Leukoc. Biol. 52:469-472. 30. Haraguchi, S., R. A. Good, and N. K. Day. 1995. Immunosuppressive retroviral peptides: cAMP and cytokine patterns. Immunol. Today 16:595-603. 31. Head, J. R. 1991. Rodent maternal-fetal immune interactions. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 3:767-771. 32. Hirose, Y., M. Takamatsu, and F. Harada. 1993. Presence of env genes in members of the RTVL-H family of human endogenous retrovirus-like elements. Virology 192:52-61. 33. Hohenadl, C., C. Leib-Mosch, R. Hehlmann, and V. Erfle. 1996. Biological significance of human endogenous retroviral sequences. J. Acquir. Immune. Defic. Syndr. Hum. Retrovirol. 13 Suppl 1:S268-S273. 34. Hojman-Montes de Oca, F., L. Dianoux, J. Peries, and R. Emanoil-Ravicovitch. 1983. Intracisternal A particles: RNA expression and DNA methylation in murine teratocarcinoma cell lines. J. Virol. 46:307-310. 35. Howe, C. C. and G. C. Overton. 1986. Expression of the intracisternal A-particle is elevated during differentiation of embryonal carcinoma cells. Mol. Cell Biol. 6:150-157. 36. Howe, C. C. and G. C. Overton. 1986. Expression of the intracisternal A-particle is elevated during differentiation of embryonal carcinoma cells. Mol. Cell Biol. 6:150-157. 37. Hunt, J. S. and J. W. Pollard. 1992. Macrophages in the uterus and placenta. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 181:39-63. 38. Hunziker, R. D. and T. G. Wegmann. 1986. Placental immunoregulation. Crit. Rev. Immunol. 6:245-285. 39. Jaenisch, R., K. Harbers, D. Jahner, C. Stewart, and H. Stuhlmann. 1982. DNA methylation, retroviruses, and embryogenesis. J. Cell Biochem. 20:331-336. 40. Johnson, P. M. 1993. Immunobiology of the human placental trophoblast. Exp. Clin. Immunogenet. 10:118-122. 41. King, A., S. E. Hiby, S. Verma, T. Burrows, L. Gardner, and Y. W. Loke. 1997. Uterine NK cells and trophoblast HLA class I molecules. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 37:459-462. 42. Kuff, E. L. and J. W. Fewell. 1985. Intracisternal A-particle gene expression in normal mouse thymus tissue: gene products and strain-related variability. Mol. Cell Biol. 5:474-483. 43. Kuff, E. L., J. A. Mietz, M. L. Trounstine, K. W. Moore, and C. L. Martens. 1986. cDNA clones encoding murine IgE-binding factors represent multiple structural variants of intracisternal A-particle genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 83:6583-6587. 44. Lande, I. J. 1986. Systemic immunity developing from intrauterine antigen exposure in the nonpregnant rat. J. Reprod. Immunol. 9:57-66. 45. Larsson, E., A. C. Andersson, and B. O. Nilsson. 1994. Expression of an endogenous retrovirus (ERV3 HERV-R) in human reproductive and embryonic tissues--evidence for a function for envelope gene products. Ups. J. Med. Sci. 99:113-120. 46. Larsson, E., N. Kato, and M. Cohen. 1989. Human endogenous proviruses. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 148:115-132. 47. Lavine, M. D. and N. E. Beckage. 1995. Polydnaviruses: potent mediators of host insect immune dysfunction. Parasitology Today 11:368-378. 48. Li, M., J. Muller, V. Rao, V. Hearing, K. Lueders, and E. Gorelik. 1996. Loss of intracisternal A-type retroviral particles in BL6 melanoma cells transfected with MHC class I genes. J. Gen. Virol. 77:2757-2765. 49. Lin, H., T. R. Mosmann, L. Guilbert, S. Tuntipopipat, and T. G. Wegmann. 1993. Synthesis of T helper 2-type cytokines at the maternal-fetal interface. J. Immunol. 151:4562-4573. 50. Loke, Y. W. and A. King. 1997. Immunology of human placental implantation: clinical implications of our current understanding. Mol Med Today 3:153-159. 51. Lower, R., J. Lower, and R. Kurth. 1996. The viruses in all of us: characteristics and biological significance of human endogenous retrovirus sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93:5177-5184. 52. Luria, S. E. 1959. Viruses: A survey of some current problems, p. 1-10. In A. Isaacs and B. W. Lacey (eds.), Virus Growth and Variation. Cambridge University Press, London, England. 53. Manor, H. 1985. Patterns of methylation of polyomavirus DNA in polyoma- transformed rat cells. J. Virol. 56:734-742. 54. Martens, C. L., T. F. Huff, P. Jardieu, M. L. Trounstine, R. L. Coffman, K. Ishizaka, and K. W. Moore. 1985. cDNA clones encoding IgE-binding factors from a rat-mouse T-cell hybridoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 82:2460-2464. 55. Martin, G. R., L. M. Wiley, and I. Damjanov. 1977. The development of cystic embryoid bodies in vitro from clonal teratocarcinoma stem cells. Dev. Biol. 61:230-244. 56. Nelson, J., J. A. Leong, and J. A. Levy. 1978. Normal human placentas contain RNA-directed DNA polymerase activity like that in viruses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 75:6263-6267. 57. Nishiguchi, S., R. Sakuma, M. Nomura, Z. Zou, J. Jearanaisilavong, T. Joh, T. Yasunaga, and K. Shimada. 1996. A catalogue of genes in mouse embryonal carcinoma F9 cells identified with expressed sequence tags. J. Biochem. (Tokyo). 119:749-767. 58. Ober, C. 1992. The maternal-fetal relationship in human pregnancy: an immunogenetic perspective. Exp. Clin. Immunogenet. 9:1-14. 59. Parker, P. 1977. An ecological comparison of marsupial and placental patterns of reproduction, p. 273-286. In B. Stonehouse and D. Gilmore (eds.), The biology of marsupials. The macmillan press ltd, New York. 60. Piko, L., M. D. Hammons, and K. D. Taylor. 1984. Amounts, synthesis, and some properties of intracisternal A particle-related RNA in early mouse embryos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 81:488-492. 61. Renfree, M. B. 1993. Ontogeny, genetic control, and phylogeny of female reproduction in monotreme and therian mammals, p. 4-20. In F. S. Szalay, M. J. Novacek, and M. C. McKenna (eds.), Mammal phylogeny. Springer-verlag, New York. 62. Reuss, F. U. 1992. Expression of intracisternal A-particle-related retroviral element-encoded envelope proteins detected in cell lines. J. Virol 66:1915-1923. 63. Reuss, F. U., W. N. Frankel, K. Moriwaki, T. Shiroishi, and J. M. Coffin. 1996. Genetics of intracisternal-A-particle-related envelope-encoding proviral elements in mice. J. Virol. 70:6450-6454. 64. Reuss, F. U. and H. C. Schaller. 1991. cDNA sequence and genomic characterization of intracisternal A-particle-related retroviral elements containing an envelope gene. J. Virol. 65:5702-5709. 65. Ruegg, C. L., C. R. Monell, and M. Strand. 1989. Identification, using synthetic peptides, of the minimum amino acid sequence from the retroviral transmembrane protein p15E required for inhibition of lymphoproliferation and its similarity to gp21 of human T-lymphotropic virus types I and II. J. Virol. 63:3250-3256. 66. Runic, R., C. J. Lockwood, Y. Ma, B. Dipasquale, and S. Guller. 1996. Expression of Fas ligand by human cytotrophoblasts: implications in placentation and fetal survival. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 81:3119-3122. 67. Schmidt, D. M., N. K. Sidhu, G. J. Cianciolo, and R. Snyderman. 1987. Recombinant hydrophilic region of murine retroviral protein p15E inhibits stimulated T-lymphocyte proliferation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 84:7290-7294. 68. Shadan, F. F. and L. P. Villarreal. 1995. The evolution of small DNA viruses of eukaryotes: past and present considerations. Virus. Genes. 11:239-257. 69. Sionov, R. V., S. Yagel, R. Har-Nir, and R. Gallily. 1993. Trophoblasts protect the inner cell mass from macrophage destruction. Biol. Reprod. 49:588-595. 70. Smit, A. F., G. Toth, A. D. Riggs, and J. Jurka. 1995. Ancestral, mammalian-wide subfamilies of LINE-1 repetitive sequences. J. Mol. Biol. 246:401-417. 71. Snyderman, R. and G. J. Cianciolo. 1984. Immunosuppresive activity of the retroviral envelope protein P15E and its possible relationship to neoplasia. Immunology Today 5:240-244. 72. Solter, D., L. Shevinsky, B. B. Knowles, and S. Strickland. 1979. The induction of antigenic changes in a teratocarcinoma stem cell line (F9) by retinoic acid. Dev. Biol. 70:515-521. 73. Stoger, H., M. Wilders-Truschnig, H. Samonigg, M. Schmid, T. Bauernhofer, A. Tiran, M. Tas, and H. A. Drexhage. 1993. The presence of immunosuppressive 'p15E-like' factors in the serum and urine of patients suffering from malign and benign breast tumours. Clin. Exp Immunol. 93:437-441. 74. Stoltz, D. 1994. Polydnaviruses, p. 1133-1135. In R. G. Webster and A. Granoff (eds.), Encyclopedia of virology volume three. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. 75. Stoye, J. P. and J. M. Coffin. 1988. Polymorphism of murine endogenous proviruses revealed by using virus class-specific oligonucleotide probes [published erratum appears in J Virol 1988 Jul;62(7):2530]. J. Virol. 62:168-175. 76. Strickland, S. and V. Mahdavi. 1978. The induction of differentiation of teratocarcinoma stem cells in vitro. Cell 15:393-403. 77. Stromberg, K. and R. Benveniste. 1983. Efficient isolation of endogenous rhesus retrovirus from trophoblast. Virology 128:518-523. 78. Suni, J., T. Wahlstrom, and A. Vaheri. 1981. Retrovirus p30-related antigen in human syncytiotrophoblasts and IgG antibodies in cord-blood sera. Int. J. Cancer 28:559-566. 79. Surani, M. A., S. C. Barton, and M. L. Norris. 1987. Influence of parental chromosomes on spatial specificity in androgenetic-parthenogenetic chimaeras in the mouse. Nature 326:395-397. 80. Surani, M. A., H. Sasaki, A. C. Ferguson-Smith, N. D. Allen, S. C. Barton, P. A. Jones, and W. Reik. 1993. The inheritance of germline-specific epigenetic modifications during development. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. 339:165-172. 81. Szathmary, E. and J. M. Smith. 1995. The major evolutionary transitions. Nature 1. 374:227-232. 82. Toltzis, P., T. Mourton, and T. Magnuson. 1993. Effect of zidovudine on preimplantation murine embryos. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 37:1610-1613. 83. Tonjes, R. R., C. Limbach, R. Lower, and R. Kurth. 1997. Expression of human endogenous retrovirus type K envelope glycoprotein in insect and mammalian cells. J. Virol. 71:2747-2756. 84. Ueno, H., M. Imamura, and K. Kikuchi. 1983. Frequency and antigenicity of type C retrovirus-like particles in human placentas. Virchows Arch. A. Pathol. Anat. Histopathol. 400:31-41. 85. Urnovitz, H. B. and W. H. Murphy. 1996. Human endogenous retroviruses: nature, occurrence, and clinical implications in human disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 9:72-99. 86. Venables, P. J., S. M. Brookes, D. Griffiths, R. A. Weiss, and M. T. Boyd. 1995. Abundance of an endogenous retroviral envelope protein in placental trophoblasts suggests a biological function. Virology 211:589-592. 87. Villareal, L. P. 1997. On viruses, sex, and motherhood. J. Virol. 71:859-865. 88. Wegmann, T. G. and L. J. Guilbert. 1992. Immune signalling at the maternal-fetal interface and trophoblast differentiation. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 16:425-430. 89. Wilkinson, D. A., N. L. Goodchild, T. M. Saxton, S. Wood, and D. L. Mager. 1993. Evidence for a functional subclass of the RTVL-H family of human endogenous retrovirus-like sequences. J. Virol. 67:2981-2989. 90. Wivel, N. A. and G. H. Smith. 1971. Distribution of intracisternal A-particles in a variety of normal and neoplastic mouse tissues. Int. J. Cancer 7:167-175. 91. Yanai, J., T. Doetchman, N. Laufer, J. Maslaton, S. Mor-Yosef, A. Safran, M. Shani, and D. Sofer. 1995. Embryonic cultures but not embryos transplanted to the mouse's brain grow rapidly without immunosuppression. Int. J. Neurosci. 81:21-26. To update this Web page, please contact Einstein at uci.edu Last Updated 7/14/1999 In a message dated 11/22/2004 8:43:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, ursus at earthlink.net writes: It's a provocative idea, isn't it? Invisible mutations, occurring at the metabolic level, in the "infrastructure," so to speak, but not manifesting in large-scale phenotypic changes. However, I think it's also apparent that all organisms today have a set of "grammatically correct" bauplan variations that can be called upon in incremental (but not gradual) stages in response to environmental challenges over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years in larger animals, and tens of years in insects, and days or weeks in bacteria. The best recent example is the reoccurrence of wings in stick insects... Best wishes! Greg -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Geraldine Reinhardt Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:32 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Could be. Check with Greg Bear. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > Is it possible that there are incremental changes > in the environment that don't require an immediate > outward response, but which do cause a series of > "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when > the environmental changes reach some triggering > level? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00007.txt >> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37397 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Nov 23 12:47:29 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:47:29 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? In-Reply-To: <191.32dcc48b.2ed44071@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041123073236.034dccf8@incoming.verizon.net> Good morning folks! One reason I like Greg's books is that he -- like other good fictions writers -- "puts it together." There are lots of verbal theories espoused in social science, especially, which, when translated into a picture... don't translate. And when ideas are translated into a picture... it tells us something we wouldn't have seen otherwise. That's a very important part of .. advancing our thought. But, as with other compelling pieces of fiction, like Ayn Rand or most of the Bible, we then may move on to ask which parts were real and essential, which were interesting but uncertain, and which were just props. We don't always know. The core message that most of our DNA may be involved in a kind of "intelligence" function, a kind of metagenetic system, is important ... and I think it is inescapable. My views here are influenced heavily by what I have seen with intelligence in neural network systems where, for good or ill, I would claim to have tangible scientific knowledge a bit more than others. (I could elaborate but not this morning.) It is clear that an effective learning system needs to exercise more resources to the learning itself than it does to the "crystallized" stimulus-memory-response patterns which it learns. That's a general sort of reality, and it would apply to genetic systems as well. Certainly there are times when slow learning or adaptation gets you killed. Thus there is a strong evolutionary advantage to having systems which can adapt better. Also... on the whole... life today seems to evolve faster than the life of the preCambrian era. It does indeed seem to have evolved an evolutionary capability. And then the "junk DNA" fraction provides strong confirmation of what we should have expected. Good learning abilities do not come cheap. And that's something I could elaborate on later. But... What about stockpiling? That's a different question. I would think of it more as maintaining a kind of sphere of variance... analogous to what people would do with... extended Kalman filtering or particle filtering or a system called SEDP/TLRN (which is like particle filtering but more efficient)... well.... There is a problem with stockpiling PIECES of a new state , when the COMBINATION of pieces has never been tested together. Greg's novels do discuss some of the problems that can occur, actually, in settling down when the rate of deployment of stockpiled variations rises very suddenly. There is a whole range of plausible systems, ranging from continuous deployment and testing of new ... phenotypes?.... to what Greg portrays, ultradiscontinuous... But... I am not an evolutionary theorist, and the clock just came online... Best, Paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 13:57:15 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:57:15 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] from Eshel Ben jacob Message-ID: <01C4D121.48E80E30.shovland@mindspring.com> -------------- next part -------------- Dear Gerry and Steve, Since I can read messages from the list but not send ( they are automatically rejected) I send the attached papers directly to you. Feel free to send them to the rest of the group. Based on my observations on bacterial colonies I published a new picture of the creative genome in which I explained that based on rational arguments it has to be able to perform information processing, learn from experiments and even change itself accordingly. During last two years there are new direct experimental evidences that support the picture. The community is willing to accept these ideas to the extend that I was invited to give a lecture at a Nobel symposium meeting. in short, yes the genome does think. But only if in the genome you include not only the sequence but the entire gestalt (enzymes proteins etc). All the best, Eshel Eshel Ben-Jacob Professor of Physics The Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems President of the Israel Physical Society (IPS) School of Physics and Astronomy Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel Email shell at tamer.taut.ac.ill Home Page: http://star.taut.ac.ill/~shell/ Tel (secretary) 972-3-640 7845/7604 (Fax) -6425787 10/2004 -6/2005 Department of Physics University of California San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0354 USA Additional Email eshel at ucsd.edu Tel (mobile) 1-858-442 8377 (office) 1-858-534 0524 (Fax) -534 7697 Visit PhysicaPlus the IMPS Online Magazine http://physicaplus.org.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pdf Size: 575324 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pdf Size: 102931 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pdf Size: 1026656 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pdf Size: 1007326 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 14:39:15 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:39:15 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Reframing an issue experiment #1 Message-ID: <01C4D127.2FC29EB0.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 93168 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 14:42:28 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:42:28 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Reframing and issue experiment #2 Message-ID: <01C4D127.9A673000.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 149633 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 14:45:53 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:45:53 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Reframing an issue experiment #3: Free Trade Message-ID: <01C4D128.1476E610.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 122051 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 15:49:38 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:49:38 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Experiment in reframing an issue #4 Message-ID: <01C4D130.FC391010.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 135302 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ursus at earthlink.net Tue Nov 23 16:24:46 2004 From: ursus at earthlink.net (Greg Bear) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:24:46 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? In-Reply-To: <031401c4d0ff$a6556a30$fd00f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: Humans have enhanced intellectual capacity, but all organisms have the ability to sense and respond to their environment. The major sensory systems for environmental change may be the stress and immune systems, which are constantly assessing and reacting to multiple indicators in the environment, both immediately and over the lifespan of the organism. Greg -----Original Message----- From: Geraldine Reinhardt [mailto:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:56 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Cc: ursus at earthlink.net; shovland at mindspring.com Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? I've concentrated on environment as being the causal factor in initiating phenotypic changes and I like what I see. Yet I'm not certain how long such a phenotypic change might take. That would depend upon the longevity and psychological discrimination of the organism able to differentiate. As far as I can prove, only humans have the ability to recognize differences. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Bear" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:42 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > It's a provocative idea, isn't it? Invisible > mutations, occurring at the > metabolic level, in the "infrastructure," so to > speak, but not manifesting > in large-scale phenotypic changes. > > However, I think it's also apparent that all > organisms today have a set of > "grammatically correct" bauplan variations that can > be called upon in > incremental (but not gradual) stages in response to > environmental challenges > over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years in larger > animals, and tens of > years in insects, and days or weeks in bacteria. > > The best recent example is the reoccurrence of wings > in stick insects... > > Best wishes! > > Greg > > -----Original Message----- > From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org > [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf > Of Geraldine Reinhardt > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:32 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > Could be. Check with Greg Bear. > > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > Independent Scholar > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Hovland" > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > >> Is it possible that there are incremental changes >> in the environment that don't require an immediate >> outward response, but which do cause a series of >> "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when >> the environmental changes reach some triggering >> level? >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM >> To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change >> stockpiled? >> >> << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: >> ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: >> ATT00007.txt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From ursus at earthlink.net Tue Nov 23 16:31:18 2004 From: ursus at earthlink.net (Greg Bear) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:31:18 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? In-Reply-To: <01C4D0C4.B33726C0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Excellent ideas. We can imagine a kind of churning hypothesis-engine in the genome, constantly error-correcting, murmuring on about possible change, rather like the voices in the back of our heads that we never act upon! I've called it the Wizard in the Genome. We can imagine such--but how fanciful is such an idea? What kind of research would need to be done to even begin to find the effects of such operations? Would it lie in RNA expressions, RNAi, or in protein modifications, or both? Perhaps the old RNA world is still the strawboss in this entire picture. Greg -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Steve Hovland Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 6:54 PM To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? One "reason" for doing this would be that any change that challenges the genome might not persist. So a solution might be prepared but not implemented until there were more data points to justify it. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Greg Bear [SMTP:ursus at earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:42 PM To: 'The new improved paleopsych list' Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? It's a provocative idea, isn't it? Invisible mutations, occurring at the metabolic level, in the "infrastructure," so to speak, but not manifesting in large-scale phenotypic changes. However, I think it's also apparent that all organisms today have a set of "grammatically correct" bauplan variations that can be called upon in incremental (but not gradual) stages in response to environmental challenges over perhaps hundreds or thousands of years in larger animals, and tens of years in insects, and days or weeks in bacteria. The best recent example is the reoccurrence of wings in stick insects... Best wishes! Greg -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Geraldine Reinhardt Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:32 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Could be. Check with Greg Bear. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? > Is it possible that there are incremental changes > in the environment that don't require an immediate > outward response, but which do cause a series of > "invisible" mutations which suddenly manifest when > the environmental changes reach some triggering > level? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:42 PM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change > stockpiled? > > << File: ATT00005.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00006.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: > ATT00007.txt >> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Nov 23 18:18:24 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:18:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems In-Reply-To: <200411231402.iANE25001485@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041123181824.12787.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> >>Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a Peter Principle, where we rise until we are incompetent and then stay there.<< --Good insight. When Peter's boss likes Peter because he never questions the system, Peter's incompetence is even more likely to be accepted and spun as success. >>Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus tests and run another centrist.<< --I'm not sure how much further to the right the Dems can get before they become clones of the GOP. They have backed down on gay marriage and gun control, squeezed out the anti-war pacifists (Kerry is not anti-war, he only questioned the BUSH'S war policy)... What else can they back down on and still have anything to offer that isn't offered by the GOP? I think it's pure spin that makes Kerry seem like a "fringe liberal" (claims that he's the "most liberal" senator have been debunked). Look at Kucinich, a REAL liberal, he didn't do well at all. Dean didn't do well either. Kerry was about as close to the center as Democrats could get without becoming another Republican party. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 18:27:36 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:27:36 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems Message-ID: <01C4D147.0D514690.shovland@mindspring.com> I think the Dems have to reassert certain positions like social justice, not move to the right. The real task is to capture just a few percent of the swing voters. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:18 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems >>Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a Peter Principle, where we rise until we are incompetent and then stay there.<< --Good insight. When Peter's boss likes Peter because he never questions the system, Peter's incompetence is even more likely to be accepted and spun as success. >>Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus tests and run another centrist.<< --I'm not sure how much further to the right the Dems can get before they become clones of the GOP. They have backed down on gay marriage and gun control, squeezed out the anti-war pacifists (Kerry is not anti-war, he only questioned the BUSH'S war policy)... What else can they back down on and still have anything to offer that isn't offered by the GOP? I think it's pure spin that makes Kerry seem like a "fringe liberal" (claims that he's the "most liberal" senator have been debunked). Look at Kucinich, a REAL liberal, he didn't do well at all. Dean didn't do well either. Kerry was about as close to the center as Democrats could get without becoming another Republican party. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Nov 23 20:44:43 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:44:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] politics In-Reply-To: <200411231900.iANJ0O004963@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041123204443.47668.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> >>I think the Dems have to reassert certain positions like social justice, not move to the right.<< --I think all they really need to do is wait 4 years. It will be difficult for the GOP to come up with another Bush, and the moderate Republicans with name recognition are unacceptable to the religious right, which erodes their edge. If (did I really say "if"?)Bush seriously screws up, that will help dems too. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 23 21:46:13 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:46:13 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] politics Message-ID: <01C4D162.CD302060.shovland@mindspring.com> Actually, the Republicans plan to run the Governor of California in 2008. Between now and then I will be doing things like this: Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:45 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] politics >>I think the Dems have to reassert certain positions like social justice, not move to the right.<< --I think all they really need to do is wait 4 years. It will be difficult for the GOP to come up with another Bush, and the moderate Republicans with name recognition are unacceptable to the religious right, which erodes their edge. If (did I really say "if"?)Bush seriously screws up, that will help dems too. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 31620 bytes Desc: not available URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Nov 24 03:31:40 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:31:40 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems References: <01C4D147.0D514690.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <041101c4d1d6$1df0e6b0$6806f604@S0027397558> I've been following this thread and what occurs to me is why cannot the Dems join with the GOP in pursuit of social justice? That way, votes will not be split and everyone can re-align and form a common whole. The differences in America between the two parties has become fairly negligible. Regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems >I think the Dems have to reassert certain > positions like social justice, not move to > the right. > > The real task is to capture just a few > percent of the swing voters. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Christopher > [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:18 AM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > >>>Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a > Peter Principle, where we rise until we are > incompetent and then stay there.<< > > --Good insight. When Peter's boss likes Peter because > he never questions the system, Peter's incompetence > is > even more likely to be accepted and spun as success. > >>>Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus > tests and run another centrist.<< > > --I'm not sure how much further to the right the Dems > can get before they become clones of the GOP. They > have backed down on gay marriage and gun control, > squeezed out the anti-war pacifists (Kerry is not > anti-war, he only questioned the BUSH'S war > policy)... > What else can they back down on and still have > anything to offer that isn't offered by the GOP? > > I think it's pure spin that makes Kerry seem like a > "fringe liberal" (claims that he's the "most liberal" > senator have been debunked). Look at Kucinich, a REAL > liberal, he didn't do well at all. Dean didn't do > well > either. Kerry was about as close to the center as > Democrats could get without becoming another > Republican party. > > Michael > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 24 04:38:40 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:38:40 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems Message-ID: <01C4D19C.6AC56040.shovland@mindspring.com> The Republicans are pursuing Social Darwinism. If you read up you will find that they are intent on destroying the social safety net that has been built starting with the New Deal. The negligible difference between the Repubs and Dems probably indicates that they need to merge and that a new populist party needs to be formed. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:32 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems I've been following this thread and what occurs to me is why cannot the Dems join with the GOP in pursuit of social justice? That way, votes will not be split and everyone can re-align and form a common whole. The differences in America between the two parties has become fairly negligible. Regards, Gerry Reinhart-Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems >I think the Dems have to reassert certain > positions like social justice, not move to > the right. > > The real task is to capture just a few > percent of the swing voters. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Christopher > [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:18 AM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > >>>Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a > Peter Principle, where we rise until we are > incompetent and then stay there.<< > > --Good insight. When Peter's boss likes Peter because > he never questions the system, Peter's incompetence > is > even more likely to be accepted and spun as success. > >>>Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus > tests and run another centrist.<< > > --I'm not sure how much further to the right the Dems > can get before they become clones of the GOP. They > have backed down on gay marriage and gun control, > squeezed out the anti-war pacifists (Kerry is not > anti-war, he only questioned the BUSH'S war > policy)... > What else can they back down on and still have > anything to offer that isn't offered by the GOP? > > I think it's pure spin that makes Kerry seem like a > "fringe liberal" (claims that he's the "most liberal" > senator have been debunked). Look at Kucinich, a REAL > liberal, he didn't do well at all. Dean didn't do > well > either. Kerry was about as close to the center as > Democrats could get without becoming another > Republican party. > > Michael > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Nov 24 04:59:52 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:59:52 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems In-Reply-To: <01C4D19C.6AC56040.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4D19C.6AC56040.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <41A41548.9010209@solution-consulting.com> This is utter nonsense. What you are reading up on is the rantings of the far left, a source that has never been right about anything. Dems and Repubs can and should join together. Clinton's genius was working with republicans and co-opting some of their ideas. Centrists have a potential for doing good, and both sides can contribute, but not if there is nothing but hate speech and attribution of false motives. Steve Hovland wrote: >The Republicans are pursuing Social Darwinism. > >If you read up you will find that they are intent >on destroying the social safety net that has been >built starting with the New Deal. > Welfare has been pared back and more people are working. Social security will run out of money, and the ownership notion may be a way to salvage it. HSAs have the potential to introduce responsible decision making into runaway medical costs. There are some good ideas these days coming from the neocons, and moderate dems can work with those to create a more just society.The danger is that the liberals have become the reactionaries, saying don't change programs even though they don't work. > >The negligible difference between the Repubs >and Dems probably indicates that they need to >merge and that a new populist party needs to >be formed. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:32 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > >I've been following this thread and what occurs to me >is why cannot the Dems join with the GOP in pursuit of >social justice? >That way, votes will not be split and everyone can >re-align and form a common whole. The differences in >America between the two parties has become fairly >negligible. > >Regards, >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Hovland" >To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > >Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:27 AM >Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > > > >>I think the Dems have to reassert certain >>positions like social justice, not move to >>the right. >> >>The real task is to capture just a few >>percent of the swing voters. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Michael Christopher >>[SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:18 AM >>To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems >> >> >> >> >>>>Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a >>>> >>>> >>Peter Principle, where we rise until we are >>incompetent and then stay there.<< >> >>--Good insight. When Peter's boss likes Peter because >>he never questions the system, Peter's incompetence >>is >>even more likely to be accepted and spun as success. >> >> >> >>>>Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus >>>> >>>> >>tests and run another centrist.<< >> >>--I'm not sure how much further to the right the Dems >>can get before they become clones of the GOP. They >>have backed down on gay marriage and gun control, >>squeezed out the anti-war pacifists (Kerry is not >>anti-war, he only questioned the BUSH'S war >>policy)... >>What else can they back down on and still have >>anything to offer that isn't offered by the GOP? >> >>I think it's pure spin that makes Kerry seem like a >>"fringe liberal" (claims that he's the "most liberal" >>senator have been debunked). Look at Kucinich, a REAL >>liberal, he didn't do well at all. Dean didn't do >>well >>either. Kerry was about as close to the center as >>Democrats could get without becoming another >>Republican party. >> >>Michael >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! >>http://my.yahoo.com >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Nov 24 05:00:44 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:00:44 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems In-Reply-To: <041101c4d1d6$1df0e6b0$6806f604@S0027397558> References: <01C4D147.0D514690.shovland@mindspring.com> <041101c4d1d6$1df0e6b0$6806f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <41A4157C.9090605@solution-consulting.com> This resonates with me, and is consistent with Kerry's concession speech and Clinton's library speech. It is time to join and try to learn what each side has to offer. Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > > I've been following this thread and what occurs to me is why cannot > the Dems join with the GOP in pursuit of social justice? > That way, votes will not be split and everyone can re-align and form a > common whole. The differences in America between the two parties has > become fairly negligible. > > Regards, > Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" > > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:27 AM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > >> I think the Dems have to reassert certain >> positions like social justice, not move to >> the right. >> >> The real task is to capture just a few >> percent of the swing voters. >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:18 AM >> To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems >> >> >>>> Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a >>> >> Peter Principle, where we rise until we are >> incompetent and then stay there.<< >> >> --Good insight. When Peter's boss likes Peter because >> he never questions the system, Peter's incompetence is >> even more likely to be accepted and spun as success. >> >>>> Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus >>> >> tests and run another centrist.<< >> >> --I'm not sure how much further to the right the Dems >> can get before they become clones of the GOP. They >> have backed down on gay marriage and gun control, >> squeezed out the anti-war pacifists (Kerry is not >> anti-war, he only questioned the BUSH'S war policy)... >> What else can they back down on and still have >> anything to offer that isn't offered by the GOP? >> >> I think it's pure spin that makes Kerry seem like a >> "fringe liberal" (claims that he's the "most liberal" >> senator have been debunked). Look at Kucinich, a REAL >> liberal, he didn't do well at all. Dean didn't do well >> either. Kerry was about as close to the center as >> Democrats could get without becoming another >> Republican party. >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> __________________________________ >> Do you Yahoo!? >> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! >> http://my.yahoo.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From HowlBloom at aol.com Wed Nov 24 05:27:20 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:27:20 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] from Eshel Ben jacob Message-ID: <19f.2c133f68.2ed575b8@aol.com> Eshel--Before I get sidetracked by the thoughts you're inspiring, a question. Can you or a grad student describe to us the "new direct experimental evidences that support the picture", the ones that have emerged in the last two years. These sound important. Now down to thought-wandering. A wonderful statement: "in short, yes the genome does think. But only if in the genome you include not only the sequence but the entire gestalt (enzymes proteins etc)." The gestalt also includes structures like the cellular skeleton, the membrane, and the external communities within which the genome lives. I've just been rereading portions of "Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence Vs. Information-Based Artificial Intelligence". I've also been thinking of the diagrams with which you showed graphically that using math, you can derive higher orders of self from a collective. Meaning depends on a self of sense. But there are multiple selves for any creature. As "Meaning-Based Natural Selection" says, there is individual self, the self that says "gimme", the selfish cell. Then there's self as a part of a subgroup...or of many subgroups. There's also self as a sense of membership in the ubergroup--the colony. And there may be senses of self that extend to the entire ecosystem that keeps a bacterial colony alive. There may even be a sense of self that applies to an entire species--or that's the implication of the work of David Smillie, a wonderful theorist who has, alas,retired and is no longer part of this group. But if there is a sense of self that's chauvinistic about the survival of the species, there's also likely to be a sense of the species membership in a vastly extended ecosystem for whose survival individual creatures would fight. This is true among humans. Is it true for our bacterial ancestors? Meaning comes from which order of organism or superorganism you want to survive and to expand. It comes from answering questions like "how do I take advantage of, avoid, or eliminate what's come across my path?" Is the advantage you're looking for your own, that of your subculture, that of your ubergroup, that of your species, or that of the environment that makes it possible for your species to survive? These are questions we humans have been dealing with since at least the first Earth Day in 1969. Is it anthropomorphism or truth to say that concerns of this sort occasionally determine the choices made by our bacterial ancestors? Howard ps One more question, a question I've probably asked a zillion times in the past. The work of James Shapiro points out that individual spiral arms of a bacterial colony separate from the motherlode of population at the colony's center, then become genetic lineages that are distinct and may even go through separate evolutionary histories. In other words, the first generation of bacteria moving out of the motherlode at the colony's core divide and give birth to offspring that have never been in touch with the motherlode and that are not in direct reproductive contact with other bacterial groups branching out in other directions. A hundred and a thousand generations later, the bacteria in one spiral arm have gone off in one genetic direction while bacteria in another spiral arm have drifted (or self-reengineered) in another direction. Is there a sense of subcultural self among these spiral arms? Do they compete? Do they go up against each other as explorer bees do, attempting to gain influence and resources for their particular approach to life? Do they go through what Global Brain, my second book, calls "creative bickering"--testing out new hypotheses on behalf of the group, then contributing to the collective thought process by battling peacefullyt over differences? In a message dated 11/23/2004 9:03:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, shovland at mindspring.com writes: Based on my observations on bacterial colonies I published a new picture of the creative genome in which I explained that based on rational arguments it has to be able to perform information processing, learn from experiments and even change itself accordingly. During last two years there are new direct experimental evidences that support the picture. The community is willing to accept these ideas to the extend that I was invited to give a lecture at a Nobel symposium meeting. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 24 05:48:50 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:48:50 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems Message-ID: <01C4D1A6.38767480.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems This is utter nonsense. What you are reading up on is the rantings of the far left, a source that has never been right about anything. Dems and Repubs can and should join together. Clinton's genius was working with republicans and co-opting some of their ideas. Centrists have a potential for doing good, and both sides can contribute, but not if there is nothing but hate speech and attribution of false motives. Steve Hovland wrote: >The Republicans are pursuing Social Darwinism. > >If you read up you will find that they are intent >on destroying the social safety net that has been >built starting with the New Deal. > Welfare has been pared back and more people are working. Social security will run out of money, and the ownership notion may be a way to salvage it. HSAs have the potential to introduce responsible decision making into runaway medical costs. There are some good ideas these days coming from the neocons, and moderate dems can work with those to create a more just society.The danger is that the liberals have become the reactionaries, saying don't change programs even though they don't work. > >The negligible difference between the Repubs >and Dems probably indicates that they need to >merge and that a new populist party needs to >be formed. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:32 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > >I've been following this thread and what occurs to me >is why cannot the Dems join with the GOP in pursuit of >social justice? >That way, votes will not be split and everyone can >re-align and form a common whole. The differences in >America between the two parties has become fairly >negligible. > >Regards, >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Hovland" >To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > >Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:27 AM >Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > > > >>I think the Dems have to reassert certain >>positions like social justice, not move to >>the right. >> >>The real task is to capture just a few >>percent of the swing voters. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Michael Christopher >>[SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:18 AM >>To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems >> >> >> >> >>>>Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a >>>> >>>> >>Peter Principle, where we rise until we are >>incompetent and then stay there.<< >> >>--Good insight. When Peter's boss likes Peter because >>he never questions the system, Peter's incompetence >>is >>even more likely to be accepted and spun as success. >> >> >> >>>>Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus >>>> >>>> >>tests and run another centrist.<< >> >>--I'm not sure how much further to the right the Dems >>can get before they become clones of the GOP. They >>have backed down on gay marriage and gun control, >>squeezed out the anti-war pacifists (Kerry is not >>anti-war, he only questioned the BUSH'S war >>policy)... >>What else can they back down on and still have >>anything to offer that isn't offered by the GOP? >> >>I think it's pure spin that makes Kerry seem like a >>"fringe liberal" (claims that he's the "most liberal" >>senator have been debunked). Look at Kucinich, a REAL >>liberal, he didn't do well at all. Dean didn't do >>well >>either. Kerry was about as close to the center as >>Democrats could get without becoming another >>Republican party. >> >>Michael >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! >>http://my.yahoo.com >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00005.html >> << File: ATT00006.txt >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 79957 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 24 06:10:23 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:10:23 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Health Savings Accounts Message-ID: <01C4D1A9.3B21DE10.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:00 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems This is utter nonsense. What you are reading up on is the rantings of the far left, a source that has never been right about anything. Dems and Repubs can and should join together. Clinton's genius was working with republicans and co-opting some of their ideas. Centrists have a potential for doing good, and both sides can contribute, but not if there is nothing but hate speech and attribution of false motives. Steve Hovland wrote: >The Republicans are pursuing Social Darwinism. > >If you read up you will find that they are intent >on destroying the social safety net that has been >built starting with the New Deal. > Welfare has been pared back and more people are working. Social security will run out of money, and the ownership notion may be a way to salvage it. HSAs have the potential to introduce responsible decision making into runaway medical costs. There are some good ideas these days coming from the neocons, and moderate dems can work with those to create a more just society.The danger is that the liberals have become the reactionaries, saying don't change programs even though they don't work. > >The negligible difference between the Repubs >and Dems probably indicates that they need to >merge and that a new populist party needs to >be formed. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:32 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > >I've been following this thread and what occurs to me >is why cannot the Dems join with the GOP in pursuit of >social justice? >That way, votes will not be split and everyone can >re-align and form a common whole. The differences in >America between the two parties has become fairly >negligible. > >Regards, >Gerry Reinhart-Waller > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Hovland" >To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > >Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:27 AM >Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems > > > > >>I think the Dems have to reassert certain >>positions like social justice, not move to >>the right. >> >>The real task is to capture just a few >>percent of the swing voters. >> >>Steve Hovland >>www.stevehovland.net >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Michael Christopher >>[SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:18 AM >>To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP and dems >> >> >> >> >>>>Insightful analysis, I enjoyed it. Sort of a >>>> >>>> >>Peter Principle, where we rise until we are >>incompetent and then stay there.<< >> >>--Good insight. When Peter's boss likes Peter because >>he never questions the system, Peter's incompetence >>is >>even more likely to be accepted and spun as success. >> >> >> >>>>Demos have to get away from the far-left litmus >>>> >>>> >>tests and run another centrist.<< >> >>--I'm not sure how much further to the right the Dems >>can get before they become clones of the GOP. They >>have backed down on gay marriage and gun control, >>squeezed out the anti-war pacifists (Kerry is not >>anti-war, he only questioned the BUSH'S war >>policy)... >>What else can they back down on and still have >>anything to offer that isn't offered by the GOP? >> >>I think it's pure spin that makes Kerry seem like a >>"fringe liberal" (claims that he's the "most liberal" >>senator have been debunked). Look at Kucinich, a REAL >>liberal, he didn't do well at all. Dean didn't do >>well >>either. Kerry was about as close to the center as >>Democrats could get without becoming another >>Republican party. >> >>Michael >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! >>http://my.yahoo.com >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00005.html >> << File: ATT00006.txt >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 189477 bytes Desc: not available URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Wed Nov 24 08:19:41 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:19:41 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <19f.2c14f28d.2ed59e1d@aol.com> Paul--these are very interesting comments. You're right that putting ideas in clear pictures helps us communicate and critique them--helps us see what they really mean. You're right that it helps us test them to see if what they mean holds up to scrutiny. I'm pushing for this form of pictorial representation--from still images to flash animation-- as a device with which to demystify the specialized languages of science. I'd like to see animation used as a device to augment journal articles. Re: "It is clear that an effective learning system needs to exercise more resources to the learning itself than it does to the "crystallized" stimulus-memory-response patterns which it learns." This is a fascinating idea. What are the elements of the learning system, as opposed to the final memory (or the final process) the learning system leaves? One element of learning in bacteria, beehives, human societies, and even human brains is exploration--the dedication of a part of the crowd and its resources to doing things that may seem purposeless and self-indulgent--like sightseeing, wandering, going off into the wastelands to see what lies beyond, following wild--or solid--hunches, following other insane impulses, playing, posturing, performing, creating, and entertaining. Explorer bees posture, perform, and entertain in order to campaign--to recruit the interest of the bored and listless, to convert those who've lost their sense of "meaning", to give the masses the sense that the goal they've all been missing is smack dab in the middle of the explorer's new discovery. The dancing explorer bees, by the way, are a case in which Eshel Ben-Jacob's sense of meaning meets the sort of meaning mystics and spiritual leaders talk about. Meaning is a vision that guides us to something we can not see. It's a sense of goal and structure that comes from a conviction that there's a pot of gold just over the horizon, even if it's one that only others in our mob will ever see--our children, their children, or those of us who die and enter an afterlife of permanent reward or punishment. Meaning is a geography-based, resources-based, inner-map-based, and time-based thing. I suspect it's in part hippocampal--belonging to that part of the brain that maps out things. It's also often a group-based thing, a collective sense of conviction, a sense of something-larger than we are. That sense of something larger than we are is an intoxicant...seemingly a hormonal kicker of great power. It is also a way that superorganismic goals often tempt us forward, seducing us to do what may mean death to us but life to the crowd of which we're a part. Groups that have this sort of lofty idealism are likely to do quite well and reward their members handsomely. Those that don't are likely to disappear, swallowed by groups of fervent idealists. That's assuming that the group has thrown its weight behind a goal that's either realistic or that has enough cohesive power to make the group unbeatable even if its ideas are dead wrong. The Native Americans who believed in the Buffalo Dance threw themselves into it with all they had. But the prediction of the Buffalo Dance's founder was way off base. By sacrificing everything you had and dedicating all your energies to buffalo dancing, you couldn't make the white man go away and force the grasslands to come back, teeming with buffalo like the herds of old. European idealists on the path of Manifest Destiny had been organized by their ideals, by their predictions, and by their greed for a far longer time than the poor buffalo dancers, who had just gotten the religion of new meaning recently. The succession of beliefs the Europeans had pursued with fervor since the days of Christianity's first triumph over pagan pluralism in 322 AD had had 1,400 years to organize men, women, tribes, nations, civilizations, science, commerce, and technology. And they'd organized and given new techno-powers to a very substantial horde. The sense of meaning meshed into 1,400 years of history had built an unbeatable army. The big horde swallowed the small. Whoops, dinner is ready. Must run and swallow a relative of a buffalo--Howard In a message dated 11/23/2004 7:48:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, paul.werbos at verizon.net writes: Good morning folks! One reason I like Greg's books is that he -- like other good fictions writers -- "puts it together." There are lots of verbal theories espoused in social science, especially, which, when translated into a picture... don't translate. And when ideas are translated into a picture... it tells us something we wouldn't have seen otherwise. That's a very important part of .. advancing our thought. But, as with other compelling pieces of fiction, like Ayn Rand or most of the Bible, we then may move on to ask which parts were real and essential, which were interesting but uncertain, and which were just props. We don't always know. The core message that most of our DNA may be involved in a kind of "intelligence" function, a kind of metagenetic system, is important ... and I think it is inescapable. My views here are influenced heavily by what I have seen with intelligence in neural network systems where, for good or ill, I would claim to have tangible scientific knowledge a bit more than others. (I could elaborate but not this morning.) It is clear that an effective learning system needs to exercise more resources to the learning itself than it does to the "crystallized" stimulus-memory-response patterns which it learns. That's a general sort of reality, and it would apply to genetic systems as well. Certainly there are times when slow learning or adaptation gets you killed. Thus there is a strong evolutionary advantage to having systems which can adapt better. Also... on the whole... life today seems to evolve faster than the life of the preCambrian era. It does indeed seem to have evolved an evolutionary capability. And then the "junk DNA" fraction provides strong confirmation of what we should have expected. Good learning abilities do not come cheap. And that's something I could elaborate on later. But... What about stockpiling? That's a different question. I would think of it more as maintaining a kind of sphere of variance... analogous to what people would do with... extended Kalman filtering or particle filtering or a system called SEDP/TLRN (which is like particle filtering but more efficient)... well.... There is a problem with stockpiling PIECES of a new state , when the COMBINATION of pieces has never been tested together. Greg's novels do discuss some of the problems that can occur, actually, in settling down when the rate of deployment of stockpiled variations rises very suddenly. There is a whole range of plausible systems, ranging from continuous deployment and testing of new ... phenotypes?.... to what Greg portrays, ultradiscontinuous... But... I am not an evolutionary theorist, and the clock just came online... Best, Paul _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www .paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 24 14:30:05 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:30:05 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <01C4D1EF.09B3E530.shovland@mindspring.com> It could be that the accretion of microscopic changes in the genes without external implementation does in fact represent a period of testing the changes to see if they are appropriate. ' Software enhancements are done this way. We get feedback from users of the existing version, we build their perceptions into the system, we test it, and eventually we go live. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:20 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Paul--these are very interesting comments. You're right that putting ideas in clear pictures helps us communicate and critique them--helps us see what they really mean. You're right that it helps us test them to see if what they mean holds up to scrutiny. I'm pushing for this form of pictorial representation--from still images to flash animation-- as a device with which to demystify the specialized languages of science. I'd like to see animation used as a device to augment journal articles. Re: "It is clear that an effective learning system needs to exercise more resources to the learning itself than it does to the "crystallized" stimulus-memory-response patterns which it learns." This is a fascinating idea. What are the elements of the learning system, as opposed to the final memory (or the final process) the learning system leaves? One element of learning in bacteria, beehives, human societies, and even human brains is exploration--the dedication of a part of the crowd and its resources to doing things that may seem purposeless and self-indulgent--like sightseeing, wandering, going off into the wastelands to see what lies beyond, following wild--or solid--hunches, following other insane impulses, playing, posturing, performing, creating, and entertaining. Explorer bees posture, perform, and entertain in order to campaign--to recruit the interest of the bored and listless, to convert those who've lost their sense of "meaning", to give the masses the sense that the goal they've all been missing is smack dab in the middle of the explorer's new discovery. The dancing explorer bees, by the way, are a case in which Eshel Ben-Jacob's sense of meaning meets the sort of meaning mystics and spiritual leaders talk about. Meaning is a vision that guides us to something we can not see. It's a sense of goal and structure that comes from a conviction that there's a pot of gold just over the horizon, even if it's one that only others in our mob will ever see--our children, their children, or those of us who die and enter an afterlife of permanent reward or punishment. Meaning is a geography-based, resources-based, inner-map-based, and time-based thing. I suspect it's in part hippocampal--belonging to that part of the brain that maps out things. It's also often a group-based thing, a collective sense of conviction, a sense of something-larger than we are. That sense of something larger than we are is an intoxicant...seemingly a hormonal kicker of great power. It is also a way that superorganismic goals often tempt us forward, seducing us to do what may mean death to us but life to the crowd of which we're a part. Groups that have this sort of lofty idealism are likely to do quite well and reward their members handsomely. Those that don't are likely to disappear, swallowed by groups of fervent idealists. That's assuming that the group has thrown its weight behind a goal that's either realistic or that has enough cohesive power to make the group unbeatable even if its ideas are dead wrong. The Native Americans who believed in the Buffalo Dance threw themselves into it with all they had. But the prediction of the Buffalo Dance's founder was way off base. By sacrificing everything you had and dedicating all your energies to buffalo dancing, you couldn't make the white man go away and force the grasslands to come back, teeming with buffalo like the herds of old. European idealists on the path of Manifest Destiny had been organized by their ideals, by their predictions, and by their greed for a far longer time than the poor buffalo dancers, who had just gotten the religion of new meaning recently. The succession of beliefs the Europeans had pursued with fervor since the days of Christianity's first triumph over pagan pluralism in 322 AD had had 1,400 years to organize men, women, tribes, nations, civilizations, science, commerce, and technology. And they'd organized and given new techno-powers to a very substantial horde. The sense of meaning meshed into 1,400 years of history had built an unbeatable army. The big horde swallowed the small. Whoops, dinner is ready. Must run and swallow a relative of a buffalo--Howard In a message dated 11/23/2004 7:48:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, paul.werbos at verizon.net writes: Good morning folks! One reason I like Greg's books is that he -- like other good fictions writers -- "puts it together." There are lots of verbal theories espoused in social science, especially, which, when translated into a picture... don't translate. And when ideas are translated into a picture... it tells us something we wouldn't have seen otherwise. That's a very important part of .. advancing our thought. But, as with other compelling pieces of fiction, like Ayn Rand or most of the Bible, we then may move on to ask which parts were real and essential, which were interesting but uncertain, and which were just props. We don't always know. The core message that most of our DNA may be involved in a kind of "intelligence" function, a kind of metagenetic system, is important ... and I think it is inescapable. My views here are influenced heavily by what I have seen with intelligence in neural network systems where, for good or ill, I would claim to have tangible scientific knowledge a bit more than others. (I could elaborate but not this morning.) It is clear that an effective learning system needs to exercise more resources to the learning itself than it does to the "crystallized" stimulus-memory-response patterns which it learns. That's a general sort of reality, and it would apply to genetic systems as well. Certainly there are times when slow learning or adaptation gets you killed. Thus there is a strong evolutionary advantage to having systems which can adapt better. Also... on the whole... life today seems to evolve faster than the life of the preCambrian era. It does indeed seem to have evolved an evolutionary capability. And then the "junk DNA" fraction provides strong confirmation of what we should have expected. Good learning abilities do not come cheap. And that's something I could elaborate on later. But... What about stockpiling? That's a different question. I would think of it more as maintaining a kind of sphere of variance... analogous to what people would do with... extended Kalman filtering or particle filtering or a system called SEDP/TLRN (which is like particle filtering but more efficient)... well.... There is a problem with stockpiling PIECES of a new state , when the COMBINATION of pieces has never been tested together. Greg's novels do discuss some of the problems that can occur, actually, in settling down when the rate of deployment of stockpiled variations rises very suddenly. There is a whole range of plausible systems, ranging from continuous deployment and testing of new ... phenotypes?.... to what Greg portrays, ultradiscontinuous... But... I am not an evolutionary theorist, and the clock just came online... Best, Paul _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www .paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net << File: ATT00003.html >> << File: ATT00004.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 24 16:46:40 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:46:40 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Liberals flock to Canada Message-ID: <01C4D202.1E1A3CA0.shovland@mindspring.com> > Illegal immigrants in Canada > Wednesday, November 17, 2004 > > The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada > has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols > to stop the illegal immigration. > > The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left > leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray and > agree with Bill O'Reilly. > > Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology > professors, animal rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields > at night. > > "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood > producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, > whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and > hungry. > > "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When > I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him > my screenplay, eh?" > > In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher > fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers > that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. > > "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush > annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk." > > Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals > near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive > them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. > > "A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an > Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of > drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, > though." > > When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often > wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors > have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing > re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic > beer, learn how to shoot a handgun and watch NASCAR. > > In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimes > ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as > senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. > After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, > Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the > supposed senior-citizen passengers. Many others were caught wearing > Birkenstock sandals with young appearing feet in them -- a dead > giveaway. > > "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, > we get suspicious about their age," an official said. > > Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are > creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan > Sarandon movies. > > "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't > support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors > does one country need?" > > In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice > President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that > the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close > to Cheney said. > > "We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put > some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined > to reach out." ------------------- From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Nov 24 19:50:54 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:50:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] gender balance in politics In-Reply-To: <200411241900.iAOJ0a007491@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041124195054.68229.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>I've been following this thread and what occurs to me is why cannot the Dems join with the GOP in pursuit of social justice?<< --The system is dominated by men, and by women loyal to men. In order to break out of the box and work together, they would have to have more females to pressure the men to put unity before suspicion. It's like asking Israelis and Arabs to work together, it works great in small, committed groups and becomes impossible as a mass. Polarities work that way, and I'm pretty sure only women can resolve polarities as a mass in a way which truly breaks society out of the box it's in. In small groups, men can do it just fine, but the larger the group, the more balance is needed between males and females in order for the group to be genuinely adaptable. Otherwise, men dominate and cannot be entirely honest because honesty involves appearing vulnerable, and men just don't do that when real power and risk is involved. The alternative is for some form of "feminine consciousness" (read: intuitive, holistic, integrative) to take over men as a group. Dunno if that happens without a lot of help from women. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Nov 24 19:52:40 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:52:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] social darwinism In-Reply-To: <200411241900.iAOJ0a007491@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041124195240.46281.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> >>The Republicans are pursuing Social Darwinism. If you read up you will find that they are intent on destroying the social safety net that has been built starting with the New Deal.<< --Don't worry. The Rapture is coming soon, so there isn't much need to plan for future generations. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Wed Nov 24 20:10:57 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:10:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare and psych In-Reply-To: <200411241900.iAOJ0a007491@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041124201057.73834.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> >>Welfare has been pared back and more people are working. Social security will run out of money, and the ownership notion may be a way to salvage it.<< --The problem may be psychological. It is not easy for anyone to give up autonomy and freedom to depend on another with absolute trust. For males especially, it is perceived as humiliation and loss of status. Welfare enables people to have freedom, or relative freedom (the freedom to persue an education, read or otherwise improve themselves, or to be "naughty"... we often talk as if they're all in the "naughty" category), and asking people who are used to freedom to depend on some privatized community help projects may not work well. We can assume it WILL work, but it may not, and it's a bit irresponsible to change things drastically in a short period of time without knowing how it will affect the ecological balance of the culture. Psychologically, it is assumed that whoever has the money will be 'daddy' and the ones without will be in the 'child' role. A good child who flatters daddy and pumps his ego gets a raise. A bad child who contradicts daddy and makes him look stupid risks demotion. Forcing people into those roles is always perceived as a tremendous slap in the face, especially if one ethinic group tends to get pushed into that position. A few corporations and private programs will genuinely understand people and work well with them, and for them it will be very positive. For those who are not so good with people, a system which forces some into dependency roles and enables others to become 'daddy' will produce chaotic results. The Stanford Prison Experiment is one example. State programs have the possibility of transparency and accountability, but private programs can be slippery. Numerous "boot camp" programs for teens have been caught in scandals involving horrific abuse. That kind of thing is why we have public supervision over programs involving people controlling other people. Many adults in the business world and in politics get addicted to that 'daddy' role and misuse it by emotionally abusing those in the 'child' position. Some degree of accountability is always necessary, and it cannot be private regulation of private enterprise. If your product is an object, no problem... but if your product is human beings, you need another layer of accountability not needed in normal companies. You just can't say "everyone take care of everybody else, I trust you". You have to provide systems of transparency and accountability, and some degree of government involvement, or at least involvement of independent NGOs, is necessary when private entities perform psychological experiments on human beings. Messing with someone's sense of security is always a psychological experiment, it is social engineering. Welfare too is social engineering, so it all has to be looked at in terms of its real effects, not on ideological assumptions about what will happen if people are thrown out of public programs. Never try a social engineering experiment on a large scale without first trying it on intermediate levels. Welfare reform is not a bad idea, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't put people in a psychological bind because that just creates extra tension which is taken out on real children. When adults play those daddy/child games, it is humiliating for the losers, who often inflict their humiliation on whoever is below them on the social hierarchy, i.e. kids and submissive women. People need to know the system that keeps them from falling is not run by people who despise weakness and use their position of power to abuse the weak. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Nov 24 20:29:51 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:29:51 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] social darwinism Message-ID: <01C4D221.4C332330.shovland@mindspring.com> And the flexibility of the liberal mind may ensure that more of us will adapt successfully :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:53 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] social darwinism >>The Republicans are pursuing Social Darwinism. If you read up you will find that they are intent on destroying the social safety net that has been built starting with the New Deal.<< --Don't worry. The Rapture is coming soon, so there isn't much need to plan for future generations. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page - Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Wed Nov 24 23:20:22 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:20:22 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] gender balance in politics References: <20041124195054.68229.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <028a01c4d27c$2d496960$1a00f604@S0027397558> > --The system is dominated by men, and by women loyal > to men. If women weren't loyal to men then I can't imagine who they should support. Loyalty is the only way a leader is able to build his alliance so that social justice can be pursued. Dividing the sexes is one certain way to polarize a country's thinking. Males are the ones who make great statesmen while women allow them to reach their potential. That old adage: "behind every successful man is a woman" holds true in most instances. Very rarely does a male reach his apogee without assistance from a gentler being. The original thrust of this thread was polarity between Dem's and GOP and my suggestion was that neither Presidential candidate was that extreme. I will continue with this belief until someone can prove otherwise. I do hope the proof comes without political baggage. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Christopher" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:50 AM Subject: [Paleopsych] gender balance in politics > >>>I've been following this thread and what occurs > to me is why cannot the Dems join with the GOP in > pursuit of social justice?<< > > --The system is dominated by men, and by women loyal > to men. In order to break out of the box and work > together, they would have to have more females to > pressure the men to put unity before suspicion. It's > like asking Israelis and Arabs to work together, it > works great in small, committed groups and becomes > impossible as a mass. Polarities work that way, and > I'm pretty sure only women can resolve polarities as > a > mass in a way which truly breaks society out of the > box it's in. In small groups, men can do it just > fine, > but the larger the group, the more balance is needed > between males and females in order for the group to > be > genuinely adaptable. Otherwise, men dominate and > cannot be entirely honest because honesty involves > appearing vulnerable, and men just don't do that when > real power and risk is involved. > > The alternative is for some form of "feminine > consciousness" (read: intuitive, holistic, > integrative) to take over men as a group. Dunno if > that happens without a lot of help from women. > > Michael > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From waluk at earthlink.net Thu Nov 25 01:12:55 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:12:55 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: men and women References: <20041124235201.21340.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03a601c4d28b$e67682b0$1a00f604@S0027397558> > --But in groups, too much loyalty can lead to > groupthink. I actually find nothing wrong with groupthink. Actually what happens in a male/female relationship is that voice and position on issues are determined beforehand. It then becomes the male's role to verbalize these to the group. Usually the female is "pudgy" due to pregnancy or running after the kids or even later, menopause and does well to assume the background and allow husband to have the podium. Many strong women never fit into the male power structure. They simply humor the male knowing full well that male longevity is much less than that of a female. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Christopher" To: "Geraldine Reinhardt" Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 3:52 PM Subject: men and women > >>>If women weren't loyal to men then I can't imagine > who they should support. Loyalty is the only way a > leader is able to build his alliance so that social > justice can be pursued.<< > > --But in groups, too much loyalty can lead to > groupthink. Women need to develop their real voice, > not cling to men and compromise their intelligence to > fit into a male power structure. Believe me, as a man > I know very well how men distort their behavior in > groups. > > Michael > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? > http://my.yahoo.com > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Thu Nov 25 04:08:40 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:08:40 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare and psych In-Reply-To: <20041124201057.73834.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041124201057.73834.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41A55AC8.6020805@solution-consulting.com> Welfare as freedom? Fascinating reframe. Doesn't quite work with me, but it is very sophisticated. Much you say is spot on, so I will just comment on that reframe. The other frame I can borrow from the black writer, Star Parker, a former welfare mother who wrote "Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It" See: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/archive.shtml My own view is that unearned income, whether by welfare or by trust fund, corrupts the recipient and degrades society. Welfare addicts (verb, not noun) but keeps people at a disgracefully low level, constantly emotionally abused by the inevitable bureaucracy endemic to all welfare states. I worked in the public mental health system, saw it myself in my clients. So the welfare state harms those it purports to help. It is a principle reason why societies lower in welfare state policies have a higher standard of living and more people employed. Socialism and welfare-statism degrade society and impoverish workers. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hitest.html Especially the projections from the 1970s that showed that Britain, before Maggie Thatcher, would have been below Albania in per-capita income by 2000. The Iron Maggie saved the UK (provocative, but there is some justification). C.f.: Walter Williams' analysis (Chairman, Dept of Economics, George Mason University) or Thomas Sowell. Both Ph.D. economists who happen to be black and make a rather convincing argument that the welfare state has greatly harmed the black community. Example: Social security takes the most from black and latino males, and gives the most to well-to-do or wealthy white females. It is a reverse income redistribution scheme, gone horribly wrong. Social justice? Reform social security! See: http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/ Listen to Wednesday, Nov. 24 program. I like Surowiecki, but he is completely out to lunch on this issue. Your contributions are thought provoking and challenging. Even when I disagree, I think about it. Thanks. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >>>Welfare has been pared back and more people are >>> >>> >working. Social security will run out of money, and >the ownership notion may be a way to salvage it.<< > >--The problem may be psychological. It is not easy for >anyone to give up autonomy and freedom to depend on >another with absolute trust. For males especially, it >is perceived as humiliation and loss of status. >Welfare enables people to have freedom, or relative >freedom (the freedom to persue an education, read or >otherwise improve themselves, or to be "naughty"... we >often talk as if they're all in the "naughty" >category), and asking people who are used to freedom >to depend on some privatized community help projects >may not work well. We can assume it WILL work, but it >may not, and it's a bit irresponsible to change things >drastically in a short period of time without knowing >how it will affect the ecological balance of the >culture. > >Psychologically, it is assumed that whoever has the >money will be 'daddy' and the ones without will be in >the 'child' role. A good child who flatters daddy and >pumps his ego gets a raise. A bad child who >contradicts daddy and makes him look stupid risks >demotion. Forcing people into those roles is always >perceived as a tremendous slap in the face, especially >if one ethinic group tends to get pushed into that >position. A few corporations and private programs will >genuinely understand people and work well with them, >and for them it will be very positive. For those who >are not so good with people, a system which forces >some into dependency roles and enables others to >become 'daddy' will produce chaotic results. The >Stanford Prison Experiment is one example. State >programs have the possibility of transparency and >accountability, but private programs can be slippery. >Numerous "boot camp" programs for teens have been >caught in scandals involving horrific abuse. That kind >of thing is why we have public supervision over >programs involving people controlling other people. > >Many adults in the business world and in politics get >addicted to that 'daddy' role and misuse it by >emotionally abusing those in the 'child' position. >Some degree of accountability is always necessary, and >it cannot be private regulation of private enterprise. >If your product is an object, no problem... but if >your product is human beings, you need another layer >of accountability not needed in normal companies. You >just can't say "everyone take care of everybody else, >I trust you". You have to provide systems of >transparency and accountability, and some degree of >government involvement, or at least involvement of >independent NGOs, is necessary when private entities >perform psychological experiments on human beings. >Messing with someone's sense of security is always a >psychological experiment, it is social engineering. >Welfare too is social engineering, so it all has to be >looked at in terms of its real effects, not on >ideological assumptions about what will happen if >people are thrown out of public programs. > >Never try a social engineering experiment on a large >scale without first trying it on intermediate levels. >Welfare reform is not a bad idea, but it has to be >done in a way that doesn't put people in a >psychological bind because that just creates extra >tension which is taken out on real children. When >adults play those daddy/child games, it is humiliating >for the losers, who often inflict their humiliation on >whoever is below them on the social hierarchy, i.e. >kids and submissive women. People need to know the >system that keeps them from falling is not run by >people who despise weakness and use their position of >power to abuse the weak. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From he at psychology.su.se Thu Nov 25 15:10:07 2004 From: he at psychology.su.se (Hannes Eisler) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:10:07 +0100 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: men and women In-Reply-To: <03a601c4d28b$e67682b0$1a00f604@S0027397558> References: <20041124235201.21340.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> <03a601c4d28b$e67682b0$1a00f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: Regarding groupthink: According to Janis is the drawback that the group is impervious to new ideas from the outside and insensitive to the possibility of incorrect knowledge and (world) views within the group. Nixon and Watergate is a good example. I hope you are aware of how limited to the US your description of male/female relationships is. In Sweden particularly your view would be attacked from many sides. A comparatively large fraction of couples living together are not married. Still, there are many cases of proficient and successful couples (the internationally most well-known is the Curies, but there are also many in Sweden). Here you can see quite a few fathers taking a (government paid) leave in order to be near their small children wandering around with perambulators. However, not as many as certain politicians would like. >>--But in groups, too much loyalty can lead to >>groupthink. > >I actually find nothing wrong with groupthink. Actually what happens >in a male/female relationship is that voice and position on issues are >determined beforehand. It then becomes the male's role to verbalize >these to the group. Usually the female is "pudgy" due to pregnancy >or running after the kids or even later, menopause and does well to >assume the background and allow husband to have the podium. > >Many strong women never fit into the male power structure. They >simply humor the male knowing full well that male longevity is much >less than that of a female. > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller >Independent Scholar >http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > -- ------------------------------------- Prof. Hannes Eisler Department of Psychology Stockholm University S-106 91 Stockholm Sweden e-mail: he at psychology.su.se fax : +46-8-15 93 42 phone : +46-8-163967 (university) +46-8-6409982 (home) internet: http://www.psychology.su.se/staff/he From paul.werbos at verizon.net Thu Nov 25 15:54:51 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system In-Reply-To: References: <01C4D0C4.B33726C0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041125103144.00c09740@incoming.verizon.net> Having spent all of about 5 minutes of real thinking about the questions Greg raises... enough thoughts pop into the mind that I doubt I have time to type them all. First -- one of the reasons why the establishment may find it difficult to fully address the questions is that they are very limited in this case in the degree of mathematical abstraction they use. It's a kind of qualitative limitation in how mathematical thinking is used... The neuroscience establishment (which I know much better) has been struggling with similar limitations... maybe a bit harder and a bit more successfully so far... ------ It is interesting to ask: now that we have learned a lot about intelligent systems in GENERAL.. and now that some of us have a reasonable first-order idea of how this maps into the brain.. what about the genetic system? Forgive me for using a new term which sounds a bit pretentious -- "metagenetics." The prefix "meta" has been badly misused lately, but in this case -- what else would be a good single word to refer to the idea of a genetic system which "learns to learn"? Part of Greg's message is that we need to understand metagenetics in order to make any sense at all of 97 percent of the human genome. That's a big step, a good one, and an important one. That idea has existed in some form for a long time, but to give it a snazzy new one-word version and focus more attention on it is still a good step. But is there more going on here? A natural way to interpret "metagenetics"... is to think of ... a kind of second-order system which is still designed to perform the same basic functions people think about in genetic algorithms or evolutionary computing: maximizing some kind of fitness function U(w) as a function of a set of weights or parameters w. (Parameters could be anything from body characteristics to behavioral response characteristics .. to anything...) A sophisticated way to explore the space of possible .. genotypes. Back in 1999 (at a plenary talk at CEC99, the IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computing), I challenged people to send me proposals to address a more interesting computational task: to design systems which LEARN to do stochastic search to maximize U(w,X), where w is as before, and X is a set of observed variables available to enhance performance. I have reiterated this in many talks and tutorials... I call this task "Brain-Like Stochastic search." It's very important in engineering, for example; if we use evolutionary search to find the best possible chip design for some task.... it would be good to represent DIFFERENT chip design tasks by a vector X, and then use a system which learns to do better on chip design task in general. For now, it's enough of a challenge to treat X as "exogenous," but someday one could advance to dynamic X... Now: one COULD follow up on Greg's questions by asking whether we can model the genetic system as one which implements "Brain-Like Stochastic Search" with dynamic X. We may ask: to what extent does this richer functional interpretation become essential to understanding the basics of what we really see with the genome? Now -- a certain degree of "stockpiling" can be important even in that limited context. But another question occurs to me today: would it make any sense to go even further, and evaluate the possibility of a still higher level of intelligence in the genetic system? I wonder. In brains, evolutionary computing is certainly far from enough, in any form. (And I suppose I know a few key things about Edelman's work that Edelman doesn't....) In a word -- TIME. Optimizing results INTO THE FUTURE, with anticipation or foresight (both explicit and implicit), is absolutely central to how brains work. Could there be anything like THAT in the genetic system? I wonder... Various types of memory are essential in brains. There are many levels of stockpiling in brains. Could any of THAT be transferrable to the genetic case? I wonder. This morning I was thinking more about Einstein than about Greg... but I suppose such thoughts would be off-topic on this list. Oh, well. Best of luck, Paul From he at psychology.su.se Thu Nov 25 16:22:29 2004 From: he at psychology.su.se (Hannes Eisler) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:22:29 +0100 Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state Message-ID: Living in a welfare state myself I have a few comments. First, we have to distinguish different groups. One group consists of people who cannot help themselves: mentally ill, retarded, alcoholics, junkies, etc. To be brutal: I don't want to see them running around on the street and perish. But also as a fellowman I want to help them, not privately but by gladly paying taxes. Second: The welfare state's intention is to redistribute your (own) income over your life cycle. An example: You get paid a certain amount for every child (from your taxes) as long as children are dear (in more than one meaning); when they are grown up and do not cost anymore your taxes are considered a repayment. This is valid for all citizens, though no personal humiliation. It works automatically. Sickness is something similar; you pay only a part of the costs of visits to physicians and medicines. However, as a healthy individual you can earn money and pay taxes, so the government (i.e., the taxpayers) may make a profit. Finally there is a group whose income does not cover their living expenses, or people who cannot handle money. Again, part of them may have gotten into some kind of trouble, say having become a victim to a fraud, and need some monetary help. For them there is another kind of social welfare; they have to ask the pertinent authority in person with all the entailing humiliation. But this is only a small part of the Swedish welfare state. But there is some trouble ahead. Many young people (according to interviews) don't place work as central in their lives as their parents and grandparents did. And many people claim to be sick when just feeling bad (not an outright cheat) which raises the amount of costs to unbearable high levels. We shall see how the welfare state will develop. As yet cannot Sweden be compared to the pre-Thatcher UK as Lynn Johnson described it. I may add: when I was about ten years old I thought it a shame to work for money--note: not to work in itself, but to earn money for a living. -- ------------------------------------- Prof. Hannes Eisler Department of Psychology Stockholm University S-106 91 Stockholm Sweden e-mail: he at psychology.su.se fax : +46-8-15 93 42 phone : +46-8-163967 (university) +46-8-6409982 (home) internet: http://www.psychology.su.se/staff/he From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 25 16:42:26 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:42:26 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: men and women Message-ID: <01C4D2CA.B1541180.shovland@mindspring.com> The current round of personnel adjustments in the Bush administration is basically filling the cabinet with yes-men. It's a formula for disaster. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Eisler [SMTP:he at psychology.su.se] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 7:10 AM To: waluk at earthlink.net Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org; aaer at psychology.su.se Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: men and women Regarding groupthink: According to Janis is the drawback that the group is impervious to new ideas from the outside and insensitive to the possibility of incorrect knowledge and (world) views within the group. Nixon and Watergate is a good example. I hope you are aware of how limited to the US your description of male/female relationships is. In Sweden particularly your view would be attacked from many sides. A comparatively large fraction of couples living together are not married. Still, there are many cases of proficient and successful couples (the internationally most well-known is the Curies, but there are also many in Sweden). Here you can see quite a few fathers taking a (government paid) leave in order to be near their small children wandering around with perambulators. However, not as many as certain politicians would like. >>--But in groups, too much loyalty can lead to >>groupthink. > >I actually find nothing wrong with groupthink. Actually what happens >in a male/female relationship is that voice and position on issues are >determined beforehand. It then becomes the male's role to verbalize >these to the group. Usually the female is "pudgy" due to pregnancy >or running after the kids or even later, menopause and does well to >assume the background and allow husband to have the podium. > >Many strong women never fit into the male power structure. They >simply humor the male knowing full well that male longevity is much >less than that of a female. > >Gerry Reinhart-Waller >Independent Scholar >http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > -- ------------------------------------- Prof. Hannes Eisler Department of Psychology Stockholm University S-106 91 Stockholm Sweden e-mail: he at psychology.su.se fax : +46-8-15 93 42 phone : +46-8-163967 (university) +46-8-6409982 (home) internet: http://www.psychology.su.se/staff/he _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 25 16:43:48 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:43:48 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system Message-ID: <01C4D2CA.E22C5740.shovland@mindspring.com> Does the ether program the genome? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 7:55 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system Having spent all of about 5 minutes of real thinking about the questions Greg raises... enough thoughts pop into the mind that I doubt I have time to type them all. First -- one of the reasons why the establishment may find it difficult to fully address the questions is that they are very limited in this case in the degree of mathematical abstraction they use. It's a kind of qualitative limitation in how mathematical thinking is used... The neuroscience establishment (which I know much better) has been struggling with similar limitations... maybe a bit harder and a bit more successfully so far... ------ It is interesting to ask: now that we have learned a lot about intelligent systems in GENERAL.. and now that some of us have a reasonable first-order idea of how this maps into the brain.. what about the genetic system? Forgive me for using a new term which sounds a bit pretentious -- "metagenetics." The prefix "meta" has been badly misused lately, but in this case -- what else would be a good single word to refer to the idea of a genetic system which "learns to learn"? Part of Greg's message is that we need to understand metagenetics in order to make any sense at all of 97 percent of the human genome. That's a big step, a good one, and an important one. That idea has existed in some form for a long time, but to give it a snazzy new one-word version and focus more attention on it is still a good step. But is there more going on here? A natural way to interpret "metagenetics"... is to think of ... a kind of second-order system which is still designed to perform the same basic functions people think about in genetic algorithms or evolutionary computing: maximizing some kind of fitness function U(w) as a function of a set of weights or parameters w. (Parameters could be anything from body characteristics to behavioral response characteristics .. to anything...) A sophisticated way to explore the space of possible .. genotypes. Back in 1999 (at a plenary talk at CEC99, the IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computing), I challenged people to send me proposals to address a more interesting computational task: to design systems which LEARN to do stochastic search to maximize U(w,X), where w is as before, and X is a set of observed variables available to enhance performance. I have reiterated this in many talks and tutorials... I call this task "Brain-Like Stochastic search." It's very important in engineering, for example; if we use evolutionary search to find the best possible chip design for some task.... it would be good to represent DIFFERENT chip design tasks by a vector X, and then use a system which learns to do better on chip design task in general. For now, it's enough of a challenge to treat X as "exogenous," but someday one could advance to dynamic X... Now: one COULD follow up on Greg's questions by asking whether we can model the genetic system as one which implements "Brain-Like Stochastic Search" with dynamic X. We may ask: to what extent does this richer functional interpretation become essential to understanding the basics of what we really see with the genome? Now -- a certain degree of "stockpiling" can be important even in that limited context. But another question occurs to me today: would it make any sense to go even further, and evaluate the possibility of a still higher level of intelligence in the genetic system? I wonder. In brains, evolutionary computing is certainly far from enough, in any form. (And I suppose I know a few key things about Edelman's work that Edelman doesn't....) In a word -- TIME. Optimizing results INTO THE FUTURE, with anticipation or foresight (both explicit and implicit), is absolutely central to how brains work. Could there be anything like THAT in the genetic system? I wonder... Various types of memory are essential in brains. There are many levels of stockpiling in brains. Could any of THAT be transferrable to the genetic case? I wonder. This morning I was thinking more about Einstein than about Greg... but I suppose such thoughts would be off-topic on this list. Oh, well. Best of luck, Paul _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Nov 25 16:46:22 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:46:22 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state Message-ID: <01C4D2CB.3E0ADD70.shovland@mindspring.com> If we don't want welfare, are we willing to provide everyone with a job that pays a living wage? Are we a national family or are we just a bunch of people who happen to live in the same place? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Eisler [SMTP:he at psychology.su.se] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:22 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: aaer at psychology.su.se Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state Living in a welfare state myself I have a few comments. First, we have to distinguish different groups. One group consists of people who cannot help themselves: mentally ill, retarded, alcoholics, junkies, etc. To be brutal: I don't want to see them running around on the street and perish. But also as a fellowman I want to help them, not privately but by gladly paying taxes. Second: The welfare state's intention is to redistribute your (own) income over your life cycle. An example: You get paid a certain amount for every child (from your taxes) as long as children are dear (in more than one meaning); when they are grown up and do not cost anymore your taxes are considered a repayment. This is valid for all citizens, though no personal humiliation. It works automatically. Sickness is something similar; you pay only a part of the costs of visits to physicians and medicines. However, as a healthy individual you can earn money and pay taxes, so the government (i.e., the taxpayers) may make a profit. Finally there is a group whose income does not cover their living expenses, or people who cannot handle money. Again, part of them may have gotten into some kind of trouble, say having become a victim to a fraud, and need some monetary help. For them there is another kind of social welfare; they have to ask the pertinent authority in person with all the entailing humiliation. But this is only a small part of the Swedish welfare state. But there is some trouble ahead. Many young people (according to interviews) don't place work as central in their lives as their parents and grandparents did. And many people claim to be sick when just feeling bad (not an outright cheat) which raises the amount of costs to unbearable high levels. We shall see how the welfare state will develop. As yet cannot Sweden be compared to the pre-Thatcher UK as Lynn Johnson described it. I may add: when I was about ten years old I thought it a shame to work for money--note: not to work in itself, but to earn money for a living. -- ------------------------------------- Prof. Hannes Eisler Department of Psychology Stockholm University S-106 91 Stockholm Sweden e-mail: he at psychology.su.se fax : +46-8-15 93 42 phone : +46-8-163967 (university) +46-8-6409982 (home) internet: http://www.psychology.su.se/staff/he _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Fri Nov 26 01:47:10 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:47:10 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state In-Reply-To: <01C4D2CB.3E0ADD70.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4D2CB.3E0ADD70.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <41A68B1E.3020702@solution-consulting.com> I am willing -- all who have worked for me are paid a living wage. Oh, wait! You mean the GOVERNMENT should guarentee these things! And where does the government get its money to do as you want? They take it away from people like me who are productive and give it to those who are not. That reduces my ability to pay employees a living wage. Living wage laws -- government imposed -- reduce the number of jobs to low income people, hurting the ones you pretend to help. This is well known. More people out of work. More people in misery. Sounds like a typical left wing bit of nonsense. We are not a family and we are not just a collection of people. We are remarkably productive and free people because our government doesn't meddle in our affairs as much as you would like. We can do better by steadily reducing the dead hand of government pressing down on the ability of free people do accomplish great things. Steve Hovland wrote: >If we don't want welfare, are we willing to >provide everyone with a job that pays a >living wage? > >Are we a national family or are we just a >bunch of people who happen to live in the >same place? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Hannes Eisler [SMTP:he at psychology.su.se] >Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:22 AM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Cc: aaer at psychology.su.se >Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state > >Living in a welfare state myself I have a few comments. >First, we have to distinguish different groups. One group consists of >people who cannot help themselves: mentally ill, retarded, >alcoholics, junkies, etc. >To be brutal: I don't want to see them running around on the street and perish. >But also as a fellowman I want to help them, not privately but by >gladly paying taxes. >Second: The welfare state's intention is to redistribute your (own) >income over your life cycle. An example: You get paid a certain >amount for every child (from your taxes) as long as children are dear >(in more than one meaning); when they are grown up and do not cost >anymore your taxes are considered a repayment. This is valid for all >citizens, though no personal humiliation. It works automatically. >Sickness is something similar; you pay only a part of the costs of >visits to physicians and medicines. However, as a healthy individual >you can earn money and pay taxes, so the government (i.e., the >taxpayers) may make a profit. >Finally there is a group whose income does not cover their living >expenses, or people who cannot handle money. Again, part of them may >have gotten into some kind of trouble, say having become a victim to >a fraud, and need some monetary help. For them there is another kind >of social welfare; they have to ask the pertinent authority in person >with all the entailing humiliation. But this is only a small part of >the Swedish welfare state. >But there is some trouble ahead. Many young people (according to >interviews) don't place work as central in their lives as their >parents and grandparents did. And many people claim to be sick when >just feeling bad (not an outright cheat) which raises the amount of >costs to unbearable high levels. >We shall see how the welfare state will develop. As yet cannot Sweden >be compared to the pre-Thatcher UK as Lynn Johnson described it. >I may add: when I was about ten years old I thought it a shame to >work for money--note: not to work in itself, but to earn money for a >living. > > From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Nov 26 12:59:42 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:59:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Disinfopedia Message-ID: <01C4D374.BEC49D80.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Disinfopedia Welcome to Disinfopedia , a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms , think tanks , industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations , governments and special interests . Sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy , the Disinfopedia was started in February 2003 and contributors are now working on 5801 articles . To learn how you can edit any article right now, visit Disinfopedia:Welcome, newcomers , our Help page , Frequently Asked Questions , or experiment in the sandbox . Browse by topic From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Nov 26 18:17:22 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:17:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare In-Reply-To: <200411251900.iAPJ0Q018712@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041126181722.37956.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> >>Welfare as freedom? Fascinating reframe. Doesn't quite work with me, but it is very sophisticated. Much you say is spot on, so I will just comment on that reframe.<< --I would also like to comment on YOUR reframe. By framing my "welfare as freedom" argument AS a reframe, you attempt to nullify the value in it. Nice job! :) But I still believe welfare does allow a greater degree of freedom than being forced into a work program in which there is little choice of the type of job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. Having a safety net that allows you to structure your own time (or at least pick from a broad range of training and employment options) does give a greater degree of freedom. >>My own view is that unearned income, whether by welfare or by trust fund, corrupts the recipient and degrades society.<< --That sounds like an ideological position, and let's assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true for some and not others?) Are there ways of having people earn their safety net income, without depriving them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who had gotten used to working for employers who were bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could make the same argument about a system which has a permanent low-wage class, that you make about the welfare system. I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job market ignores the psychological impact of such an experiment, just as you worry about the psychological impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're playing with the lives of human beings when we abruptly change the system. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Nov 26 18:23:24 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:23:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] national family In-Reply-To: <200411251900.iAPJ0Q018712@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041126182324.61554.qmail@web13425.mail.yahoo.com> >>Are we a national family or are we just a bunch of people who happen to live in the same place?<< --Apparently we're enough of a national family that we want to protect traditional marriage models and abortion (not to mention ban "obscenity" on the airwaves... for the children, of course), but not so much a family that we want to take care of people who can't take care of themselves, except by forcing them to go to churches for care, which probably suits the evangelicals nicely. Ending the "welfare state" (that word really implies something it's not) would result in a huge potential crop of converts for churches, unless private secular orgs manage to get enough donations to do more. Of course, that amounts to a big "church tax" unless churches get public money to help people. It's interesting how "faith-based programs" are NOT accused of promoting socialism, while secular programs funded with tax money are. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Fri Nov 26 20:39:34 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:39:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] left/right In-Reply-To: <200411261900.iAQJ0S008866@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041126203934.63206.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> >>Living wage laws -- government imposed -- reduce the number of jobs to low income people, hurting the ones you pretend to help. This is well known.<< --I think it's assumed, not "well known". What kind of sample was studied in making that determination? >>More people out of work. More people in misery. Sounds like a typical left wing bit of nonsense.<< --Countered by a typical bit of right wing nonsense, apparently. A lot of people let ideology govern their thinking, rather than an actual analysis of what happens when variables are changed in a society. It requires humility, because in any multi-variable system, changing one variable can unexpectedly affect others, and it's all experimental. There is no shortage of people with opinions, willing to impose their opinions on the entire system, and the fallout from such experimentation can be tragic. Everyone is SO certain their hypothesis is correct, and so unwilling to step down to the street level to see the effects of their decisions up close. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From ursus at earthlink.net Fri Nov 26 22:10:15 2004 From: ursus at earthlink.net (Greg Bear) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:10:15 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20041125103144.00c09740@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: Fascinating. I'll copy this to some of my friends in biotech here in Seattle, and see if some discussion can be prompted. Greg -----Original Message----- From: paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org [mailto:paleopsych-bounces at paleopsych.org] On Behalf Of Werbos, Dr. Paul J. Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 7:55 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system Having spent all of about 5 minutes of real thinking about the questions Greg raises... enough thoughts pop into the mind that I doubt I have time to type them all. First -- one of the reasons why the establishment may find it difficult to fully address the questions is that they are very limited in this case in the degree of mathematical abstraction they use. It's a kind of qualitative limitation in how mathematical thinking is used... The neuroscience establishment (which I know much better) has been struggling with similar limitations... maybe a bit harder and a bit more successfully so far... ------ It is interesting to ask: now that we have learned a lot about intelligent systems in GENERAL.. and now that some of us have a reasonable first-order idea of how this maps into the brain.. what about the genetic system? Forgive me for using a new term which sounds a bit pretentious -- "metagenetics." The prefix "meta" has been badly misused lately, but in this case -- what else would be a good single word to refer to the idea of a genetic system which "learns to learn"? Part of Greg's message is that we need to understand metagenetics in order to make any sense at all of 97 percent of the human genome. That's a big step, a good one, and an important one. That idea has existed in some form for a long time, but to give it a snazzy new one-word version and focus more attention on it is still a good step. But is there more going on here? A natural way to interpret "metagenetics"... is to think of ... a kind of second-order system which is still designed to perform the same basic functions people think about in genetic algorithms or evolutionary computing: maximizing some kind of fitness function U(w) as a function of a set of weights or parameters w. (Parameters could be anything from body characteristics to behavioral response characteristics .. to anything...) A sophisticated way to explore the space of possible .. genotypes. Back in 1999 (at a plenary talk at CEC99, the IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computing), I challenged people to send me proposals to address a more interesting computational task: to design systems which LEARN to do stochastic search to maximize U(w,X), where w is as before, and X is a set of observed variables available to enhance performance. I have reiterated this in many talks and tutorials... I call this task "Brain-Like Stochastic search." It's very important in engineering, for example; if we use evolutionary search to find the best possible chip design for some task.... it would be good to represent DIFFERENT chip design tasks by a vector X, and then use a system which learns to do better on chip design task in general. For now, it's enough of a challenge to treat X as "exogenous," but someday one could advance to dynamic X... Now: one COULD follow up on Greg's questions by asking whether we can model the genetic system as one which implements "Brain-Like Stochastic Search" with dynamic X. We may ask: to what extent does this richer functional interpretation become essential to understanding the basics of what we really see with the genome? Now -- a certain degree of "stockpiling" can be important even in that limited context. But another question occurs to me today: would it make any sense to go even further, and evaluate the possibility of a still higher level of intelligence in the genetic system? I wonder. In brains, evolutionary computing is certainly far from enough, in any form. (And I suppose I know a few key things about Edelman's work that Edelman doesn't....) In a word -- TIME. Optimizing results INTO THE FUTURE, with anticipation or foresight (both explicit and implicit), is absolutely central to how brains work. Could there be anything like THAT in the genetic system? I wonder... Various types of memory are essential in brains. There are many levels of stockpiling in brains. Could any of THAT be transferrable to the genetic case? I wonder. This morning I was thinking more about Einstein than about Greg... but I suppose such thoughts would be off-topic on this list. Oh, well. Best of luck, Paul _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From HowlBloom at aol.com Sat Nov 27 01:47:30 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:47:30 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <15c.446c4087.2ed936b2@aol.com> In a message dated 11/24/2004 9:31:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, shovland at mindspring.com writes: It could be that the accretion of microscopic changes in the genes without external implementation does in fact represent a period of testing the changes to see if they are appropriate. ' Software enhancements are done this way. We get feedback from users of the existing version, we build their perceptions into the system, we test it, and eventually we go live. the whole concept of natural selection gets very iffy if something like this is true. A genetic suite can extend the skin of a small mammal, can give the mammal wings, and can turn a tree-climbing mammal into a bat. But if that genetic suite can only test its viability to survive in the team of a genome and in the environment of a nucleus, if the gene suite remains hidden--or cryptic, to use the term applied by researchers on this topic, how can it test the viability of its product?the skin flaps connecting front limbs to hind limbs that are wings? How can that suite of genes be "certain" that it will turn out a malformation of skin that's aerodynamically sound? How can it be sure it will turn out a malformation that will serve any useful purpose, much less one that gives rodents the ability can fly an edge? How, for that matter, does a suite of genes for a body segment of an insect "learn" how to produce a head if it shows up in one place, a thorax if the gene suite shows up in another, and an abdomen if it shows up third in line? How could gene suites possibly learn to produce these things without trial and error, without testing, and without practice? Or, to put it in Stephen Jay Gould's terms, if Darwin's gradualism is right, why do we not see a plethora of "hopeful monsters"--random experiments that don't work out? Is it possible that when animals?including humans?are exposed to stress or to opportunity, gene suites that have never been tried out before suddenly appear, we have a flood of hopeful monsters, and those that are able to find or to invent a new way of making a living, a new niche, become fruitful and multiply? If so, do we have any evidence for this among multicellular creatures? We DO have evidence of this sort of body-plasticity among bacteria. When bacteria are exposed to stress they become more open to new genetic inserts from phages and from bacterial sex. In the ancient days when John Skoyles was among us, he pointed to research on heat-shock genes demonstrating that there are gene police that keep the genome rigidly in order under normal circumstances, but that loosen their grip when life gets tough and open the genome to new solutions to old problems, including solutions that turn old problems into new forms of food. But is there plasticity of this sort in the bodies of multicellular organisms? There?s some that comes from shifting the amount of time an embryo stays in the womb. Eject your infant when it?s still highly plastic and you get neoteny, you get a lot of extra wiggle room. And the brain is extremely plastic?at least in humans. But how far can bodies stretch and bend without trial and error? The two papers that relate to this issue are Eshel?s on ?Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence? and Greg?s on ?When Genes Go Walkabout?, so I?ll append them below. Onward?Howard ________ WHEN GENES GO WALKABOUT By Greg Bear I?m pleased and honored to be asked to appear before the American Philosophical Society, and especially in such august company. Honored... and more than a little nervous! I am not, after all, a scientist, but a writer of fiction--and not just of fiction, but of science fiction. That means humility is not my strong suit. Science fiction writers like to be provocative. That?s our role. What we write is far from authoritative, or final, but science fiction works best when it stimulates debate. I am an interested amateur, an English major with no degrees in science. And I am living proof that you don?t have to be a scientist to enjoy deep exploration of science. So here we go--a personal view. A revolution is under way in how we think about the biggest issues in biology--genetics and evolution. The two are closely tied, and viruses--long regarded solely as agents of disease--seem to play a major role. For decades now, I?ve been skeptical about aspects of the standard theory of evolution, the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis. But without any useful alternative--and since I?m a writer, and not a scientist, and so my credentials are suspect--I have pretty much kept out of the debate. Nevertheless, I have lots of time to read--my writing gives me both the responsibility and the freedom to do that, to research thoroughly and get my facts straight. And over ten years ago, I began to realize that many scientists were discovering key missing pieces of the evolutionary puzzle. Darwin had left open the problem of what initiated variation in species. Later scientists had closed that door and locked it. It was time to open the door again. Collecting facts from many sources--including papers and texts by the excellent scientists speaking here today--I tried to assemble the outline of a modern appendix to Darwin, using ideas derived from disciplines not available in Darwin?s time: theories of networks, software design, information transfer and knowledge, and social communication--lots of communication. My primary inspiration and model was variation in bacteria. Bacteria initiate mutations in individuals and even in populations through gene transfer, the swapping of DNA by plasmids and viruses. Another inspiration was the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, popularized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. In the fossil record--and for that matter, in everyday life--what is commonly observed are long periods of evolutionary stability, or equilibrium, punctuated by sudden change over a short span of time, at least geologically speaking--ten thousand years or less. And the changes seem to occur across populations. Gradualism--the slow and steady accumulation of defining mutations, a cornerstone of the modern synthesis--does not easily accommodate long periods of apparent stability, much less rapid change in entire populations. If punctuated equilibrium is a real phenomenon, then it means that evolutionary change can be put on hold. How is that done? How is the alleged steady flow of mutation somehow delayed, only to be released all at once? I was fascinated by the possibility that potential evolutionary change could be stored up. Where would it be kept? Is there a kind of genetic library where hypothetical change is processed, waiting for the right moment to be expressed? Does this imply not only storage, but a kind of sorting, a critical editing function within our DNA, perhaps based on some unknown genetic syntax and morphology? If so, then what triggers the change? Most often, it appears that the trigger is either environmental challenge or opportunity. Niches go away, new niches open up. Food and energy becomes scarce. New sources of food and energy become available. Lacking challenge or change, evolution tends to go to sleep--perhaps to dream, and sometimes to rumple the covers, but not to get out of bed and go for coffee. Because bacteria live through many generations in a very short period of time, their periods of apparent stability are not millennia, but years or months or even days. The most familiar mutational phenomenon in bacteria--resistance to antibiotics--can happen pretty quickly. Bacteria frequently exchange plasmids that carry genes that counteract the effects of antibiotics. Bacteria can also absorb and incorporate raw fragments of DNA and RNA, not packaged in nice little chromosomes. The members of the population not only sample the environment, but exchange formulas, much as our grandmothers might swap recipes for soup and bread and cookies. How these recipes initially evolve can in many instances be attributed to random mutation--or to the fortuitous churning of gene fragments--acting through the filter of natural selection. Bacteria do roll the dice, but recent research indicates that they roll the dice more often when they?re under stress--that is, when mutations will be advantageous. Interestingly, they also appear to roll the dice predominantly in those genetic regions where mutation will do them the most good! Bacteria, it seems, have learned how to change more efficiently. Once these bacterial capabilities evolve, they spread rapidly. However, they spread only when a need arises--again, natural selection. No advantage, no proliferation. No challenge, no change. But gene swapping is crucial. And it appears that bacteria accept these recipes not just through random action, but through a complicated process of decision-making. Bacterial populations are learning and sharing. In short, bacteria are capable of metaevolution--self-directed change in response to environmental challenges. Because of extensive gene transfer, establishing a strict evolutionary tree of bacterial types has become difficult, though likely not impossible. We?re just going to have to be clever, like detectives solving crimes in a town where everyone is a thief. Perhaps the most intriguing method of gene swapping in bacteria is the bacteriophage, or bacterial virus. Bacteriophages--phages for short--can either kill large numbers of host bacteria, reproducing rapidly, or lie dormant in the bacterial chromosome until the time is right for expression and release. Lytic phages almost invariably kill their hosts. But these latter types--known as lysogenic phages--can actually transport useful genes between hosts, and not just randomly, but in a targeted fashion. In fact, bacterial pathogens frequently rely on lysogenic phages to spread toxin genes throughout a population. Cholera populations become pathogenic in this fashion. In outbreaks of E. coli that cause illness in humans, lysogenic phages have transported genes from shigella--a related bacterial type--conferring the ability to produce shiga toxin, a potent poison. Thus, what at first glance looks like a disease--viral infection--is also an essential method of communication--FedEx for genes. When genes go walkabout, bacteria can adapt quickly to new opportunities. In the case of bacterial pathogens, they can rapidly exploit a potential marketplace of na?ve hosts. In a way, decisions are made, quorums are reached, genes are swapped, and behaviors change. What lies behind the transfer of bacterial genes? Again, environmental challenges and opportunities. While some gene exchange may be random, bacterial populations overall appear to practice functions similar to education, regimentation, and even the execution of uncooperative members. When forming bacterial colonies, many bacteria--often of different types--group together and exchange genes and chemical signals to produce an organized response to environmental change. Often this response is the creation of a biofilm, a slimy polysaccharide construct complete with structured habitats, fluid pathways, and barriers that discourage predators. Biofilms can even provide added protection against antibiotics. Bacteria that do not go along with this regimen can be forced to die--either by being compelled to commit suicide or by being subjected to other destructive measures. If you don?t get with the picture, you break down and become nutrients for those bacterial brothers who do, thus focusing and strengthening the colony. A number of bacteriologists have embraced the notion that bacteria can behave like multicellular organisms. Bacteria cooperate for mutual advantage. Today, in the dentist?s office, what used to be called plaque is now commonly referred to as a biofilm. They?re the same thing--bacterial cities built on your teeth. In 1996, I proposed to my publishers a novel about the coming changes in biology and evolutionary theory. The novel would describe an evolutionary event happening in real-time--the formation of a new sub-species of human being. What I needed, I thought, was some analog to what happens in bacteria. And so I would have to invent ancient viruses lying dormant in our genome, suddenly reactivated to ferry genes and genetic instructions between humans. To my surprise, I quickly discovered I did not have to invent anything. Human endogenous retroviruses are real, and many of them have been in our DNA for tens of millions of years. Even more interesting, some have a close relationship to the virus that causes AIDS, HIV. The acronym HERV--human endogenous retrovirus--became my mantra. In 1997 and 1998, I searched the literature (and the internet) for more articles about these ancient curiosities--and located a few pieces here and there, occasional mention in monographs, longer discussions in a few very specialized texts. I was especially appreciative of the treatment afforded to HERV in the Cold Spring Harbor text Retroviruses, edited by Drs. Coffin, Varmus, and Hughes. But to my surprise, the sources were few, and there was no information about HERV targeted to the general layman. As a fiction writer, however, I was in heaven--ancient viruses in our genes! And hardly anyone had heard of them. If I had had any sense, I would have used that for what it seemed at face value--a ticking time bomb waiting to go off and destroy us all. But I had different ideas. I asked, what do HERV do for us? Why do we allow them to stay in our genome? In fact, even in 1983, when I was preparing my novel Blood Music, I asked myself--what do viruses do for us? Why do we allow them to infect us? I suspected they were part of a scheme involving computational DNA, but could not fit them in...not just then. HIV was just coming into the public consciousness, and retroviruses were still controversial. I learned that HERV express in significant numbers in pregnant women, producing defective viral particles apparently incapable of passing to another human host. So what were they--useless hangers-on? Genetic garbage? Instinctively, I could not believe that. I?ve always been skeptical of the idea of junk DNA, and certainly skeptical of the idea that the non-coding portions of DNA are deserts of slovenly and selfish disuse. HERV seemed to be something weird, something wonderful and counter-intuitive--and they were somehow connected with HIV, a species-crossing retrovirus that had become one of the major health scourges on the planet. I couldn?t understand the lack of papers and other source material on HERV. Why weren?t they being investigated by every living biologist? In my rapidly growing novel, I wrote of Kaye Lang, a scientist who charts the possible emergence of an HERV capable of producing virions--particles that can infect other humans. To her shock, the HERV she studies is connected by investigators at the CDC with a startling new phenomenon, the apparent mutation and death of infants. The infectious HERV is named SHEVA. But SHEVA turns out to be far more than a disease. It?s a signal prompting the expression of a new phenotype, a fresh take on humanity--a signal on Darwin?s Radio. In 1999, the novel was published. To my gratified surprise, it was reviewed in Nature and other science journals. Within a very few months, news items about HERV became far more common. New scientific papers reported that ERV-related genes could help human embryos implant in the womb--something that has recently been given substantial credence. And on the web, I encountered the fascinating papers of Dr. Luis P. Villarreal. I felt as if I had spotted a big wave early, and jumped on board just in time. Still, we have not found any evidence of infectious HERV--and there is certainly no proof that retroviruses do everything I accuse them of in Darwin?s Radio. But after four years, the novel holds up fairly well. It?s not yet completely out of date. And the parallel of HERV with lysogenic phages is still startling. But back to the real world of evolution and genetics. The picture we see now in genetics is complex. Variation can occur in a number of ways. DNA sequence is not fate; far from it. The same sequence can yield many different products. Complexes of genes lie behind most discernible traits. Genes can be turned on and off at need. Non-coding DNA is becoming extremely important to understanding how genes do their work. As well, mutations are not reliable indicators of irreversible change. In many instances, mutations are self-directed responses to the environment. Changes can be reversed and then reenacted at a later time--and even passed on as reversible traits to offspring. Even such neo-Darwinian no-nos as the multiple reappearances of wings in stick insects points toward the existence of a genetic syntax, a phylogenetic toolbox, rather than random mutation. Wings are in the design scheme, the bauplan. When insects need them, they can be pulled from the toolbox and implemented once again. We certainly don?t have to throw out Mr. Darwin. Natural selection stays intact. Random variation is not entirely excised. But the neo-Darwinian dogma of random mutation as a cause of all variation, without exception, has been proven wrong. Like genetics, evolution is not just one process, but a collaboration of many processes and techniques. And evolution is not entirely blind. Nor must evolution be directed by some outside and supernatural intelligence to generate the diversity and complexity we see. Astonishing creativity, we?re discovering, can be explained by wonderfully complicated internal processes. These newer views of evolution involve learning and teamwork. Evolution is in large part about communication--comparing notes and swapping recipes, as it were. It appears that life has a creative memory, and knows when and how to use it. Let?s take a look at what the scientists have discovered thus far. Viruses can and do ferry useful genes between organisms. Viruses can also act as site-specific regulators of genetic expression. Within a cell, transposable elements--jumping genes similar in some respects to endogenous retroviruses--can also be targeted to specific sites and can regulate specific genes. Both viruses and transposable elements can be activated by stress-related chemistry, either in their capacity as selfish pathogens--a stressed organism may be a weakened organism--or as beneficial regulators of gene expression--a stressed organism may need to change its nature and behavior. Viral transmission occurs not just laterally, from host to host (often during sex), but vertically through inherited mobile elements and endogenous retroviruses. Chemical signals between organisms can also change genetic expression. As well, changes in the environment can lead to modification of genetic expression in both the individual and in later generations of offspring. These changes may be epigenetic--factors governing which genes are to be expressed in an organism can be passed on from parent to offspring--but also genetic, in the sequence and character of genes. Our immune system functions as a kind of personal radar, sampling the environment and providing information that allows us to adjust our immune response--and possibly other functions, as well. These pathways and methods of regulation and control point toward a massive natural network capable of exchanging information--not just genes themselves, but how genes should be expressed, and when. Each gene becomes a node in a genomic network that solves problems on the cellular level. Cells talk to each other through chemistry and gene transfer. And through sexual recombination, pheromonal interaction, and viruses, multicellular organisms communicate with each other and thus become nodes in a species-wide network. On the next level, through predation and parasitism, as well as through cross-species exchange of genes, an ecosystem becomes a network in its own right, an interlinking of species both cooperating and competing, often at the same time. Neural networks from beehives to brains solve problems through the exchange and the selective cancellation and modification of signals. Species and organisms in ecosystems live and die like signals in a network. Death--the ax of natural selection--is itself a signal, a stop-code, if you will. Networks of signals exist in all of nature, from top to bottom--from gene exchange to the kinds of written and verbal communication we see at this event. Changes in genes can affect behavior. Sometimes even speeches can affect behavior. Evolution is all about competition and cooperation--and communication. Traditional theories of evolution emphasize the competitive aspect and de-emphasize or ignore the cooperative aspect. But developments in genetics and molecular biology render this emphasis implausible. Genes go walkabout far too often. We are just beginning to understand the marvelous processes by which organisms vary and produce the diversity of living nature. For now, evolution is a wonderful mystery, ripe for further scientific exploration. The gates have been blown open once again. And as a science fiction writer, I?d like to make two provocative and possibly ridiculous predictions. The first is that the more viruses may be found in an organism and its genome, the more rapid will be that organism?s rate of mutation and evolution. And the second: Bacteria are such wonderful, slimmed-down organisms, lacking introns and all the persiflage of eukaryotic biology. It seems to me that rather than bacteria being primitive, and that nucleated cells evolved from them, the reverse could be true. Bacteria may once have occupied large, primitive eukaryotic cells, perhaps similar to those seen in the fossil Vendobionts--or the xenophyophores seen on ocean bottoms today. There, they evolved and swam within the relative safety of the membranous sacs, providing various services, including respiration. They may have eventually left these sacs and become both wandering minstrels and predators, serving and/or attacking other sacs in the primitive seas. Eventually, as these early eukaryotic cells advanced, and perhaps as the result of a particularly vicious cycle of bacterial predation, they shed nearly all their bacterial hangers-on in a protracted phase of mutual separation, lasting hundreds of millions or even billions of years. And what the now trim and super-efficient bacteria--the sports cars of modern biology--left behind were the most slavish and servile members of that former internal community: the mitochondria. Which group will prove to have made the best decision, to have taken the longest and most lasting road? ________ 1 Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence Vs. Information-Based Artificial Intelligence By Eshel Ben Jacob and Yoash Shapira School of Physics and Astronomy Raymond & Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv Israel Abstract In this chapter, we reflect on the concept of Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence - a fundamental trait of Life shared by all organisms, from bacteria to humans, associated with: semantic and pragmatic communication, assignment and generation of meaning, formation of self-identity and of associated identity (i.e., of the group the individual belongs to), identification of natural intelligence, intentional behavior, decision-making and intentionally designed self-alterations. These features place the Meaning-Based natural Intelligence beyond the realm of Information-based Artificial Intelligence. Hence, organisms are beyond man-made pre-designed machinery and are distinguishable from non-living systems. Our chain of reasoning begins with the simple distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic contextual causations for acquiring intelligence. The first, associated with natural intelligence, is required for the survival of the organism (the biotic system) that generates it. In contrast, artificial intelligence is implemented externally to fulfill a purpose for the benefit of the organism that engineered the ?Intelligent Machinery?. We explicitly propose that the ability to assign contextual meaning to externally gathered information is an essential requirement for survival, as it gives the organism the freedom of contextual decision-making. By contextual, we mean relating to the external and internal states of the organism and the internally stored ontogenetic knowledge it has generated. We present the view that contextual interpretation of information and consequent decision-making are two fundamentals of natural intelligence that any living creature must have. 2 A distinction between extraction of information from data vs. extraction of meaning from information is drawn while trying to avoid the traps and pitfalls of the ? meaning of meaning? and the ?emergence of meaning? paradoxes. The assignment of meaning (internal interpretation) is associated with identifying correlations in the information according to the internal state of the organism, its external conditions and its purpose in gathering the information. Viewed this way, the assignment of meaning implies the existence of intrinsic meaning, against which the external information can be evaluated for extraction of meaning. This leads to the recognition that the organism has self-identity. We present the view that the essential differences between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence are a testable reality, untested and ignored since it had been wrongly perceived as inconsistent with the foundations of physics. We propose that the inconsistency arises within the current, gene-network picture of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm (that regards organisms as equivalent to a Turing machine) and not from in principle contradiction with physical reality. Once the ontological reality of organisms? natural intelligence is verified, a paradigm shift should be considered, where inter- and intra-cellular communication and genome plasticity (based on junk DNA? and the abundance of transposable elements) play crucial roles. In this new paradigm, communication and gene plasticity might be able to sustain the organisms with regulated freedom of choice between different available responses. There have been many attempts to attribute the cognitive abilities of organisms (e.g., consciousness) to underlying quantum-mechanical mechanisms, which can directly affect the ?mechanical? parts of the organism (i.e., atomic and molecular excitations) despite thermal noise. Here, organisms are viewed as continuously self-organizing open systems that store past information, external and internal. These features enable the macroscopic organisms to have features analogous to some features in quantum mechanical systems. Yet, they are essentially different and should not be mistaken to be a direct reflection of quantum effects. On the conceptual level, the analogy is very useful as it can lead to some insights from the knowledge of quantum mechanics. We show, for example, how it enables to metaphorically bridge between the Aharonov-Vaidman and Aharonov-Albert-Vaidman concepts of Protective and Weak Measurements in quantum mechanics (no destruction of the quantum state) with Ben Jacob?s concept of Weak-Stress Measurements, (e.g., exposure to non-lethal levels of antibiotic) in the study of organisms. We also reflect on the metaphoric analogy 3 between Aharonov-Anandan-Popescue-Vaidman Quantum Time-Translation Machine and the ability of an external observer to deduce on an organism?s decision-making vs. arbitrary fluctuations. Inspired by the concept of Quantum Non-Demolition measurements we propose to use biofluoremetry (the use of bio-compatible fluorescent molecules to study intracellular spatio-temporal organization and functional correlations) as a future methodology of Intracellular Non-Demolition Measurements. We propose that the latter, performed during Weak-Stress Measurements of the organism, can provide proper schemata to test the special features associated with natural intelligence. Prologue - From Bacteria Thou Art Back in 1943, a decade before the discovery of the structure of the DNA, Schr?dinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, delivered a series of public lectures, later collected in a book entitled ?What is Life? The Physical Aspects of Living Cells? [1]. The book begins with an ?apology? and explanation why he, as a physicist, took the liberty to embark on a quest related to Life sciences. A scientist is supposed to have a complete and thorough I of knowledge, at first hand, of some subjects and, therefore, is usually expected not to write on any topic of which he is not a life master. This is regarded as a matter of noblesse oblige. For the present purpose I beg to renounce the noblesse, if any, and to be the freed of the ensuing obligation. ?some of us should venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second-hand and incomplete knowledge of some of them -and at the risk of making fools of ourselves, so much for my apology. Schr?dinger proceeds to discuss the most fundamental issue of Mind from Matter [1-3]. He avoids the trap associated with a formal definition of Life and poses instead more pragmatic questions about the special features one would associate with living organisms - to what extent these features are or can be shared by non-living systems. What is the characteristic feature of life? When is a piece of matter said to be alive? When it goes on 'doing something', moving, exchanging material with its environment, and so forth, and that for a much longer period than we would expect of an inanimate piece of matter to 'keep going' under similar circumstances. 4 ?Let me use the word 'pattern' of an organism in the sense in which the biologist calls it 'the four-dimensional pattern', meaning not only the structure and functioning of that organism in the adult, or in any other particular stage, but the whole of its ontogenetic development from the fertilized egg the cell to the stage of maturity, when the organism begins to reproduce itself. To explain how the organism can keep alive and not decay to equilibrium, Schr?dinger argues from the point of view of statistical physics. It should be kept in mind that the principles of non-equilibrium statistical physics [4-6] with respect to organisms, and particularly to self-organization in open systems [7-12], were to be developed only a decade later, following Turing?s papers, ?The chemical basis of morphogenesis?, ? The morphogen theory of phyllotaxis? and ?Outline of the development of the daisy? [13-15]. The idea Schr?dinger proposed was that, to maintain life, it was not sufficient for organisms just to feed on energy, like man-made thermodynamic machines do. To keep the internal metabolism going, organisms must absorb low-entropy energy and exude high-entropy waste products. How would we express in terms of the statistical theory the marvelous faculty of a living organism, by which it delays the decay into thermodynamic equilibrium (death)? We said before: 'It feeds upon negative entropy', attracting, as it was a stream of negative entropy upon itself, to compensate the entropy increase it produces by living and thus to maintain itself on a stationary and fairly low entropy level. Indeed, in the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed upon well enough, viz. the extremely well-ordered state of matter in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it. The idea can be continued down the line to bacteria - the most fundamental independent form of life on Earth [16-18]. They are the organisms that know how to reverse the second law of thermodynamics in converting high-entropy inorganic substance into low-entropy living matter. They do this cooperatively, so they can make use of any available source of lowentropy energy, from electromagnetic fields to chemical imbalances, and release highentropy energy to the environment, thus acting as the only Maxwell Demons of nature. The existence of all other creatures depends on these bacterial abilities, since no other organism on earth can do it on its own. Today we understand that bacteria utilize cooperatively the principles of self-organization in open systems [19-36]. Yet bacteria must thrive on 5 imbalances in the environment; in an ideal thermodynamic bath with no local and global spatio-temporal structure, they can only survive a limited time. In 1943, the year Schr?dinger delivered his lectures, Luria and Delbruck performed a cornerstone experiment to prove that random mutation exists [37]: non-resistant bacteria were exposed to a lethal level of bacteriophage, and the idea was that only those that happened to go through random mutation would survive and be observed. Their experiments were then taken as a crucial support for the claim of the Neo-Darwinian dogma that all mutations are random and can occur during DNA replication only [38-41]. Schr?dinger proposed that random mutations and evolution can in principle be accounted for by the laws of physics and chemistry (at his time), especially those of quantum mechanics and chemical bonding. He was troubled by other features of Life, those associated with the organisms? ontogenetic development during life. The following are additional extracts from his original lectures about this issue: Today, thanks to the ingenious work of biologists, mainly of geneticists, during the last thirty or forty years, enough is known about the actual material structure of organisms and about their functioning to state that, and to tell precisely why present-day physics and chemistry could not possibly account for what happens in space and time within a living organism. ?I tried to explain that the molecular picture of the gene made it at least conceivable that the miniature code should be in one-to-one correspondence with a highly complicated and specified plan of development and should somehow contain the means of putting it into operation. Very well then, but how does it do this? How are we going to turn ?conceivability? into true understanding? ?No detailed information about the functioning of the genetic mechanism can emerge from a description of its structure as general as has been given above. That is obvious. But, strangely enough, there is just one general conclusion to be obtained from it, and that, I confess, was my only motive for writing this book. From Delbruck's general picture of the hereditary substance it emerges that living matter, while not eluding the 'laws of physics' as established up to date, is likely to involve 'other laws of physics' hitherto unknown, which, however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of this science as the former. This is a rather subtle line of thought, open to misconception in more than one respect. All the remaining pages are concerned with making it clear. With the discovery of the structure of DNA, the evidence for the one-gene-one-protein scheme and the discoveries of the messenger RNA and transfer RNA led to the establishment of the gene-centered paradigm in which the basic elements of life are the genes. According to this paradigm, Schr?dinger?s old dilemma is due to lack of knowledge at the time, so the new 6 findings render it obsolete. The dominant view since has been that all aspects of life can be explained solely based on the information stored in the structure of the genetic material. In other words, the dominant paradigm was largely assumed to be a self-consistent and a complete theory of living organisms [38-41], although some criticism has been raised over the years [42-47], mainly with emphasis on the role of bacteria in symbiogenesis of species. The latter was proposed in (1926) by Mereschkovsky in a book entitled "Symbiogenesis and the Origin of Species" and by Wallin in a book entitled "Symbionticism and the Origins of Species". To quote Margulis and Sagan [44]: The pioneering biologist Konstantin S. Merezhkovsky first argued in 1909 that the little green dots (chloroplasts) in plant cells, which synthesize sugars in the presence of sunlight, evolved from symbionts of foreign origin. He proposed that ? symbiogenesis?? a term he coined for the merger of different kinds of life-forms into new species?was a major creative force in the production of new kinds of organisms. A Russian anatomist, Andrey S. Famintsyn, and an American biologist, Ivan E. Wallin, worked independently during the early decades of the twentieth century on similar hypotheses. Wallin further developed his unconventional view that all kinds of symbioses played a crucial role in evolution, and Famintsyn, believing that chloroplasts were symbionts, succeeded in maintaining them outside the cell. Both men experimented with the physiology of chloroplasts and bacteria and found striking similarities in their structure and function. Chloroplasts, they proposed, originally entered cells as live food? microbes that fought to survive?and were then exploited by their ingestors. They remained within the larger cells down through the ages, protected and always ready to reproduce. Famintsyn died in 1918; Wallin and Merezhkovsky were ostracized by their fellow biologists, and their work was forgotten. Recent studies have demonstrated, however, that the cell?s most important organelles?chloroplasts in plants and mitochondria in plants and animals?are highly integrated and well-organized former bacteria. The main thesis is that microbes, live beings too small to be seen without the aid of microscopes, provide the mysterious creative force in the origin of species. The machinations of bacteria and other microbes underlie the whole story of Darwinian evolution. Free-living microbes tend to merge with larger forms of life, sometimes seasonally and occasionally, sometimes permanently and unalterably. Inheritance of ?acquired bacteria? may ensue under conditions of stress. Many have noted that the complexity and responsiveness of life, including the appearance of new species from differing ancestors, can be comprehended only in the light of evolution. But the evolutionary saga itself is legitimately vulnerable to criticism from within and beyond science. Acquisition and accumulation of random mutations simply are, of course, important processes, but they do not suffice. Random mutation alone does not account for evolutionary novelty. Evolution of life is incomprehensible if microbes are omitted from the story. Charles Darwin (1809-1882), in the absence of evidence, invented ?pangenes? as the source of new inherited variation. If he and the first evolutionist, the 7 Frenchman Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, only knew about the sub visible world what we know today, they would have chuckled, and agreed with each other and with us. The Neo-Darwinian paradigm began to draw some additional serious questioning following the human genome project that revealed less than expected genes and more than expected transposable elements. The following is a quote from the Celera team [18]. Taken together the new findings show the human genome to be far more than a mere sequence of biological code written on a twisted strand of DNA. It is a dynamic and vibrant ecosystem of its own, reminiscent of the thriving world of tiny Whos that Dr. Seuss' elephant, Horton, discovered on a speck of dust . . . One of the bigger surprises to come out of the new analysis, some of the "junk" DNA scattered throughout the genome that scientists had written off as genetic detritus apparently plays an important role after all. Even stronger clues can be deduced when social features of bacteria are considered: Eons before we came into existence, bacteria already invented most of the features that we immediately think of when asked to distinguish life from artificial systems: extracting information from data, assigning existential meaning to information from the environment, internal storage and generation of information and knowledge, and inherent plasticity and self-alteration capabilities [9]. Let?s keep in mind that about 10% of our genes in the nucleus came, almost unchanged, from bacteria. In addition, each of our cells (like the cells of any eukaryotes and plans) carries its own internal colony of mitochondria - the intracellular multiple organelles that carry their own genetic code (assumed to have originated from symbiotic bacteria), inherited only through the maternal line. One of the known and well studied functions of mitochondria is to produce energy via respiration (oxidative phosphorylation), where oxygen is used to turn extracellular food into internally usable energy in the form of ATP. The present fluorescence methods allow video recording of the mitochondria dynamical behavior within living cells reveal that they play additional crucial roles for example in the generation of intracellular calcium waves in glia cells[48-50]. Looking at the spatio-temporal behavior of mitochondria, it appears very much like that of bacterial colonies. It looks as if they all move around in a coordinated manner replicate and even conjugate like bacteria in a colony. From Schr?dinger?s perspective, it seems that not 8 only do they provide the rest of the cell with internal digestible energy and negative entropy but they also make available relevant information embedded in the spatio-temporal correlations of localized energy transfer. In other words, each of our cells carries hundreds to thousands of former bacteria as colonial Maxwell Demons with their own genetic codes, selfidentity, associated identity with the mitochondria in other cells (even if belong to different tissues), and their own collective self-interest (e.g., to initiate programmed death of their host cell). Could it be, then, that the fundamental, causality-driven schemata of our natural intelligence have also been invented by bacteria [9,47], and that our natural intelligence is an ?evolutionimproved version?, which is still based on the same fundamental principles and shares the same fundamental features? If so, perhaps we should also learn something from bacteria about the fundamental distinction between our own Natural Intelligence and the Artificial Intelligence of our created machinery. Introduction One of the big ironies of scientific development in the 20th century is that its burst of creativity helped establish the hegemony of a paradigm that regards creativity as an illusion. The independent discovery of the structure of DNA (Universal Genetic Code), the introduction of Chomsky?s notion about human languages (Universal Grammar ? Appendix B) and the launching of electronic computers (Turing Universal Machines- Appendix C), all occurring during the 1950?s, later merged and together established the dominance of reductionism. Western philosophy, our view of the world and our scientific thought were under its influence ever since, to the extent that many hold the deep conviction that the Universe is a Laplacian, mechanical universe in which there is no room for renewal or creativity [47]. In this Universe, concepts like cognition, intelligence or creativity are seen as mere illusion. The amazing process of evolution (from inanimate matter, through organisms of increasing complexity, to the emergence of intelligence) is claimed to be no more than a successful accumulation of errors (random mutations) enhanced by natural selection (the Darwinian picture). Largely due to the undeniable creative achievements of science, unhindered by the still unsolved fundamental questions, the hegemony of reductionism 9 reached the point where we view ourselves as equivalent to a Universal Turing machine. Now, by the logical reasoning inherent in reductionism, we are not and can not be essentially different ?beings? from the machinery we can create like complex adaptive systems [51]. The fundamental assumption is of top-level emergence: a system consists of a large number of autonomous entities called agents, that individually have very simple behavior and that interact with each other in simple ways. Despite this simplicity, a system composed of large numbers of such agents often exhibits what is called emergent behavior that is surprisingly complex and hard to predict. Moreover, in principle, we can design and build machinery that can even be made superior to human cognitive abilities [52]. If so, we re present living examples of machines capable of creating machines (a conceptual hybrid of ourselves and our machines) ?better? then themselves, which is in contradiction with the paradigmatic idea of natural evolution: that all organisms evolved according to a ?Game of Random Selection? played between a master random-number generator (Nature) and a collection of independent, random number generators (genomes). The ontological reality of Life is perceived as a game with two simple rules ? the second law of thermodynamics and natural selection. Inherent meaning and causality-driven creativity have no existence in such a reality ? the only meaning of life is to survive. If true, how come organisms have inherent programming to stop living? So here is the irony: that the burst of real creativity was used to remove creativity from the accepted epistemological description of Nature, including life. The most intriguing challenge associated with natural intelligence is to resolve the difficulty of the apparent contradiction between its fundamental concepts of decision-making and creativity and the fundamental principle of time causality in physics. Ignoring the trivial notion, that the above concepts have no ontological reality, intelligence is assumed to reflect Top-Level-Emergence in complex systems. This commonly accepted picture represents the ?More is Different? view [53], of the currently hegemonic reductionism-based constructivism paradigm. Within this paradigm, there are no primary differences between machinery and living systems, so the former can, in principle, be made as intelligent as the latter and even more. Here we argue that constructivism is insufficient to explain natural intelligence, and all-level generativism, or a ?More is Different on All Levels? principle, is necessary for resolving the emergence of the meaning paradox [9]. The idea is the cogeneration of meaning on all hierarchical levels, which involves self-organization and contextual alteration of the constituents of the biotic system on all levels (down to the 10 genome) vs. top-level emergence in complex systems with pre-designed and pre-prepared elements [51,52]. We began in the prologue with the most fundamental organisms, bacteria, building the argument towards the conclusion that recent observations of bacterial collective self-identity place even them, and not only humans, beyond a Turing machine: Everyone agrees that even the most advanced computers today are unable to fully simulate even an individual, most simple bacterium of some 150 genes, let alone more advanced bacteria having several thousands of genes, or a colony of about 1010 such bacteria. Within the current Constructivism paradigm, the above state of affairs reflects technical or practical rather than fundamental limitations. Namely, the assumption is that any organelle, our brain included, as well as any whole organism, is in principle equivalent to, and thus may in principle be mapped onto a universal Turing Machine ? the basis of all man-made digital information processing machines (Appendix C). We argue otherwise. Before doing so we will place Turing?s notions about ?Intelligent Machinery? [54] and ?Imitation Game? [55] within a new perspective [56], in which any organism, including bacteria, is in principle beyond machinery [9,47]. This realization will, in turn, enable us to better understand ourselves and the organisms our existence depends on ? the bacteria. To make the argument sound, we take a detour and reflect on the philosophical question that motivated Turing to develop his conceptual computing machine: We present Turing?s universal machine within the causal context of its invention [57], as a manifestation of G?del?s theorem [58-60], by itself developed to test Hilbert?s idea about formal axiomatic systems [61]. Then we continued to reexamine Turing?s seminal papers that started the field of Artificial Intelligence, and argue that his ?Imitation Game?, perceived ever since as an ?Intelligence Test?, is actually a ?Self-Non-Self Identity Test?, or ? Identity Game? played between two humans competing with a machine by rules set from machines perspective, and a machine built by another human to win the game by presenting a false identity. We take the stand that Artificial and Natural Intelligence are distinguishable, but not by Turing?s imitation game which is set from machines perspective - the rules of the game simply do not allow expression of the special features of natural intelligence. Hence, for distinction between the two versions of Intelligence, the rules of the game must be modified 11 in various ways. Two specific examples are presented, and it is propose that it?s unlikely for machines to win these new versions of the game. Consequently, we reflect on the following questions about natural intelligence: 1. Is it a metaphor or overlooked reality? 2. How can its ontological reality be tested? 3. Is it consistent with the current gene-networks picture of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm? 4. Is it consistent with physical causal determinism and time causality? To answer the questions, we first present the current accepted picture of organisms as ?watery Turing machines? living in a predetermined Laplacian Universe. We then continue to describe the ? creative genome? picture and a new perspective of the organism as a system with special built-in means to sustain ?learning from experience? for decision-making [47]. For that, we reflect on the analogy between the notions of the state of multiple options in organisms, the choice function in the Axiom of Choice in mathematics (Appendix D) and the superposition of states in quantum mechanics (Appendix E). According to the analogy, destructive quantum measurements (that involve collapse of the wave function) are equivalent to strong-stress measurements of the organisms (e.g., lethal levels of antibiotics) and to intracellular destructive measurements (e.g., gene-sequencing and gene-expression in which the organism is disassembled). Inspired by the new approach of protective quantum measurements, which do not involve collapse of the wave function (Appendix E), we propose new conceptual experimental methodologies of biotic protective measurements - for example, by exposing the organisms to weak stress, like non-lethal levels of antibiotic [62,63], and by using fluoremetry to record the intracellular organization and dynamics keeping the organism intact [64-66]. Formation of self-identity and of associated identity (i.e., of the group the individual belongs to), identification of natural intelligence in other organisms, intentional behavior, decisionmaking [67-75] and intentionally designed self-alterations require semantic and pragmatic communication [76-80], are typically associated with cognitive abilities and meaning-based natural intelligence of human. One might accept their existence in the ? language of dolphins? but regard them as well beyond the realm of bacterial communication abilities. We propose that this notion should be reconsidered: New discoveries about bacterial intra- and intercellular communication [81-92], colonial semantic and pragmatic language [9,47,93,94], the above mentioned picture of the genome [45-47], and the new experimental methodologies led us to consider bacterial natural intelligence as a testable reality. 12 Can Organisms be Beyond Watery Turing Machines in Laplace?s Universe? The objection to the idea about organisms? regulated freedom of choice can be traced to the Laplacian description of Nature. In this picture, the Universe is a deterministic and predictable machine composed of matter parts whose functions obey a finite set of rules with specified locality [95-98]. Laplace has also implicitly assumed that determinism, predictability and locality go hand in hand with computability (using current terminology), and suggested that: ?An intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprises it. If this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain: and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.? Note that this conceptual intellect (Lacplace?s demon) is assumed to be an external observer, capable, in principle, of performing measurements without altering the state of the system, and, like Nature itself, equivalent to a universal Turing machine. In the subsequent two centuries, every explicit and implicit assumption in the Laplacean paradigm has proven to be wrong in principle (although sometimes a good approximation on some scales). For example, quantum mechanics ruled out locality and the implicit assumption about simultaneous and non-destructive measurements. Studies in computer sciences illustrate that a finite deterministic system (with sufficient algorithmic complexity) can be beyond Turing machine computability (the size of the required machine should be comparable with that of the whole universe or the computation time of a smaller machine would be comparable with the time of the universe). Computer sciences, quantum measurements theory and statistical physics rule out backward computability even if the present state is accurately known. 13 Consequently, systems? unpredictability to an external observer is commonly accepted. Yet, it is still largely assumed that nature itself as a whole and any of its parts must in principle be predetermined, that is, subject to causal determinism [98],which must go hand in hand with time causality [96]: Causal determinism is the thesis that all events are causally necessitated by prior events, so that the future is not open to more than one possibility. It seems to be equivalent to the thesis that the future is in principle completely predictable (even if in practice it might never actually be possible to predict with complete accuracy). Another way of stating this is that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen, meaning that a completely accurate prediction of any future event could in principle be given, as in the famous example of Laplace?s demon. Clearly, a decomposable state of mixed multiple options and hence decision-making can not have ontological reality in a universe subject to ?causal determinism? . Moreover, in this Neo-Laplacian Universe, the only paradigm that does not contradict the foundations of logic is the Neo-Darwinian one. It is also clear that in such clockwork universe there can not be an essential difference, for example, between self-organization of a bacterial colony and self-organization of a non living system such as electro-chemical deposition [99,100]. Thus, all living organisms, from bacteria to humans, could be nothing but watery Turing machines created and evolved by random number generators. The conviction is so strong that it is pre-assumed that any claim regarding essential differences between living organisms and non living systems is an objection to the foundations of logic, mathematics, physics and biology. The simple idea, that the current paradigm in life sciences might be the source of the apparent inconsistency and hence should be reexamined in light of the new discoveries, is mostly rejected point-blank. In the next sections we present a logical argument to explain why the Neo-Laplacian Universe (with a built-in Neo-Darwinian paradigm) can not provide a complete and selfconsistent description of Nature even if random number generators are called for the rescue. The chain of reasoning is linked with the fact that formal axiomatic systems cannot provide complete bases for mathematics and the fact that a Universal Turing Machine cannot answer all the questions about its own performance. Hilbert?s Vision ? 14 Meaning-Free Formal Axiomatic Systems Computers were invented to clarify G?del?s theorem, which by itself has been triggered by the philosophical question about the foundation of mathematics raised by Russell?s logical paradoxes [61]. These paradoxes attracted much attention, as they appeared to shatter the solid foundations of mathematics, the most elegant creation of human intelligence. The best known paradox has to do with the logical difficulty to include the intuitive concept of selfreference within the foundations of Principia Mathematica: If one attempts to define the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves, a paradox arises - that if the set is to be an element of itself, it shouldn?t, and vice versa. As an attempt to eliminate such paradoxes from the foundations of mathematics, Hilbert invented his meta-mathematics. The idea was to lay aside the causal development of mathematics as a meaningful ?tool? for our survival, and set up a formal axiomatic system so that a meaning-independent mathematics can be built starting from a set of basic postulates (axioms) and well-defined rules of deduction for formulating new definitions and theorems clean of paradoxes. Such a formal axiomatic system would then be a perfect artificial language for reasoning, deduction, computing and the description of nature. Hilbert?s vision was that, with the creation of a formal axiomatic system, the causal meaning that led to its creation could be ignored and the formal system treated as a perfect, meaning-free game played with meaning-free symbols on paper. His idea seemed very elegant - with ?superior? rules, ?uncontaminated? by meaning, at our disposal, any proof would not depend any more on the limitation of human natural language with its imprecision, and could be executed, in principle, by some advanced, meaning-free, idealized machine. It didn?t occur to him that the built-in imprecision of human linguistics (associated with its semantic and pragmatic levels) are not a limitation but rather provide the basis for the flexibility required for the existence of our creativity-based natural intelligence. He overlooked the fact that the intuitive (semantic) meanings of intelligence and creativity have to go hand in hand with the freedom to err ? there is no room for creativity in a precise, clockwork universe. G?del?s Incompleteness/Undecidability Theorem 15 In 1931, in a monograph entitled ?On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems? [58-61], G?del proved that Hilbert?s vision was in principle wrong - an ideal ?Principia Mathematica? that is both self-consistent and complete can not exist. Two related theorems are formulated and proved in G?del?s paper: 1. The Undecidability Theorem - within formal axiomatic systems there exist questions that are neither provable nor disprovable solely on the basis of the axioms that define the system. 2. The Incompleteness Theorem - if all questions are decidable then there must exist contradictory statements. Namely, a formal axiomatic system can not be both self-consistent and complete. What G?del showed was that a formal axiomatic system is either incomplete or inconsistent even if just the elementary arithmetic of the whole numbers 0,1,2,3, is considered (not to mention all of mathematics). He bridged between the notion of selfreferential statements like ?This statement is false? and Number Theory. Clearly, mathematical statements in Number Theory are about the properties of whole numbers, which by themselves are not statements, nor are their properties. However, a statement of Number Theory could be about a statement of Number Theory and even about itself (i.e., self-reference). To show this, he constructed one-to-one mapping between statements about numbers and the numbers themselves. In Appendix D, we illustrate the spirit of G?del?s code. G?del?s coding allows regarding statements of Number Theory on two different levels: (1) as statements of Number Theory, and (2) as statements about statements of Number Theory. Using his code, G?del transformed the Epimenides paradox (?This statement is false?) into a Number Theory version: ?This statement of Number Theory is improvable?. Once such a statement of Number Theory that describes itself is constructed, it proves G?del?s theorems. If the statement is provable then it is false, thus the system is inconsistent. Alternatively, if the statement is improvable, it is true but then the system is incomplete. One immediate implication of G?del?s theorem is that no man-made formal axiomatic system, no matter how complex, is sufficient in principle to capture the complexity of the simplest of all systems of natural entities ? the natural whole numbers. In simple words, any 16 mathematical system we construct can not be prefect (self-consistent and complete) on its own ? some of its statements rely on external human intervention to be settled. It is thus implied that either Nature is not limited by causal determinism (which can be mapped onto a formal axiomatic system), or it is limited by causal determinism and there are statement about nature that only an external Intelligence can resolve. The implications of G?del?s theorem regarding human cognition are still under debate [108]. According to the Lucas-Penrose view presented in ?Minds, Machines and G?del? by Lucas [101] and in ?The emperor?s new mind: concerning computers, minds and the law of physics? by Penrose [73], G?del?s theorems imply that some of the brain functions must act non-algorithmically. The popular version of the argumentation is: There exist statements in arithmetic which are undecidable for any algorithm yet are intuitively decidable for mathematicians. The objection is mainly to the notion of ?intuition-based mathematical decidability?. For example, Nelson in ?Mathematics and the Mind? [109], writes: For the argumentation presented in later sections, we would like to highlight the following: Russell?s paradoxes emerge when we try to assign the notion of self-reference between the system and its constituents. Unlike living organisms, the sets of artificial elements or Hilbert?s artificial systems of axioms are constructed from fixed components (they do not change due to their assembly in the system) and with no internal structure that can be a functional of the system as a whole as it is assembled. The system itself is also fixed in time or, more precisely, has no temporal ordering. The set is constructed (or the system of axioms is defined) by an external spectator who has the information about the system, i.e., the system doesn?t have internally stored information about itself and there are no intrinsic causal links between the constituents. 17 Turing?s Universal Computing Machine G?del?s theorem, though relating to the foundations of mathematical philosophy, led Alan Turing to invent the concept of computing machinery in 1936. His motivation was to test the relevance of three possibilities for formal axiomatic systems that are left undecidable in G?del?s theorems: 1. they can not be both self consistent and complete but can be either; 2. they can not be self-consistent; 3. they can not be complete. Turing proved that formal axiomatic systems must be at least incomplete. To prove his theorem, G?del used his code to map both symbols and operations. The proof itself, which is quite complicated, utilizes many recursively defined functions. Turing?s idea was to construct mapping between the natural numbers and their binary representation and to include all possible transformations between them to be performed by a conceptual machine. The latter performs the transformation according to a given set of pre-constructed instructions (program). Thus, while G?del used the natural numbers themselves to prove his theorems, Turing used the space of all possible programs, which is why he could come up with even stronger statements. For later reflections, we note that each program can be perceived as functional correlation between two numbers. In other words the inherent limitations of formal axiomatic systems are better transparent in the higher dimension space of functional correlations between the numbers. Next, Turing looked for the kind of questions that the machine in principle can?t solve irrespective of its physical size. He proved that the kinds of questions the machine can not solve are about its own performance. The best known is the ?halting problem?: the only way a machine can know if a given specific program will stop within a finite time is by actually running it until it stops. The proof is in the spirit of the previous ?self-reference games?: assume there is a program that can check whether any computer program will stop (Halt program). Prepare another program which makes an infinite loop i.e., never stops (Go program). Then, make a third Dual program which is composed of the first two such that a positive result of the Halt- Buster part will activate the Go-Booster part. Now, if the Dual program is fed as input to the Halt-Buster program it leads to a paradox: the Dual program is constructed so that, if it is to 18 stop, the Halt-Buster part will activate the Go-Booster part so it shouldn?t stop and vice versa. In a similar manner it can be proven that Turing machine in principle can not answer questions associated with running a program backward in time. Turing?s proof illustrates the fact that the notion of self-reference can not be part of the space of functional correlations generated by Universal Turing machine. In this sense, Turing proved that if indeed Nature is equivalent to his machine (the implicit assumption associated with causal determinism), we, as parts of this machine, can not in principle generate a complete description of its functioning - especially so with regard to issues related to systems? self-reference. The above argumentations appear as nothing more than, at best, an amusing game. Four years later (in 1940), Turing converted his conceptual machine into a real one ? the first electronic computer The Enigma, which helped its human users decipher codes used by another machine. For later discussion we emphasize the following: The Enigma provided the first illustration, that while Turing machine is limited in answering on its own questions about itself, it can provide a useful tool to aid humans in answering questions about other systems, both artificial and natural. In other words, Turing machine can be a very useful tool to help humans design another, improved Turing machine, but it is not capable of doing so on its own - it can not answer questions about itself. In this sense, stand alone machines can not have in principle the features we proposed to associate with natural intelligence. The Birth of Artificial Intelligence ? Turing?s Imitation Game In his 1936 paper [57], Turing claims that a universal computing machine of the kind he proposed can, in principle, perform any computation that a human being can carry out. Ten years later, he began to explore the potential range of functional capabilities of computing machinery beyond computing and in 1950 he published an influential paper, ? Computing Machinery and Intelligence? [55], which led to the birth of Artificial Intelligence. The paper starts with a statement: ?I propose to consider the question, ?Can machine think?? This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms ?machine? and ?think?. The definitions might be 19 framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous.? So, in order to avoid the pitfalls of definitions of terms like ?think? and ?intelligence?, Turing suggested replacing the question by another, which he claimed ?...is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ? imitation game?...? This proposed game, known as Turing?s Intelligence Test, involves three players: a human examiner of identities I, and two additional human beings, each having a different associated identity. Turing specifically proposed to use gender identity: a man A and a woman B. The idea of the game is that the identifier I knows (A;B) as (X;Y) and he has to identify, by written communication, who is who, aided by B (a cooperator) against the deceiving communication received from A (a defector). The purpose of I and B is that I will be able to identify who is A. The identity of I is not specified in Turing?s paper saying that he may be of either sex. It is implicitly assumed that the three players have a common language, which can be used also by machines, and that I, A, and B also have a notion about the identity of the other players. Turing looked at the game from a machinery vs. human perspective, asking ?What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?? He proposed that a machine capable of causing I to fail in his identifications as often as a man would, should be regarded intelligent. That is, the rate of false identifications of A made by I with the aid of B is a measure of the intelligence of A. So, Turing?s intelligence test is actually about self identity and associated identity and the ability to identify non-self identity of different kinds! Turing himself referred to his game as an ?imitation game?. Currently, the game is usually presented in a different version - an intelligent being I has to identify who the machine is, while the machine A attempts to imitated intelligent being. Moreover, it is perceived that the Inquirer I bases his identification according to which player appears to him more intelligent. Namely, the game is presented as 20 an intelligence competition, and not about Self-Non-Self identity as was originally proposed by Turing. >From Kasparov?s Mistake to Bacterial Wisdom Already in 1947, in a public lecture [15], Turing presented a vision that within 50 years computers will be able to compete with people in the chess game. The victory of Deep Blue over Kasparov exactly 50 years later is perceived today by many, scientists and layman alike, as clear proof for computers? Artificial Intelligence [109,110]. Turing himself considered success in a chess game only a reflection of superior computational capabilities (the computer?s ability to compute very fast all possible configurations). In his view, success in the imitation game was a greater challenge. In fact, the connection between success in the imitation game and intelligence is not explicitly discussed in his 1950 paper. Yet, it has become to be perceived as an intelligence test and led to the current dominant view of Artificial Intelligence, that in principle any living organism is equivalent to a universal Turing machine [107-110]. Those who view the imitation game as an intelligence test of the machine usually assume that the machine?s success in the game reflects the machine?s inherent talent. We follow the view that the imitation game is not about the machine?s talent but about the talent of the designer of the machine who ?trained it? to play the role of A. The above interpretation is consistent with Kasparov?s description of his chess game with Deep Blue. According to him, he lost because he failed to foresee that after the first match (which he won) the computer was rebuilt and reprogrammed to play positional chess. So Kasparov opened with the wrong strategy, thus losing because of wrong decisionmaking not in chess but in predicting the intentions of his human opponents (he wrongly assumed that computer designing still hasn?t reached the level of playing positional chess). Thus he lost because he underestimated his opponents. The ability to properly evaluate self intelligence in comparison to that of others is an essential feature of natural intelligence. It illustrates that humans with higher analytical skills can have lower skills associated with natural intelligence and vice versa: the large team that designed and programmed Deep Blue properly evaluated Kasparov?s superior talent relative to that of each one of them on its own. 21 So, before the second match, they extended their team. Bacteria, being the most primordial organisms, had to adopt a similar strategy to survive when higher organisms evolved. The ?Bacterial Wisdom? principle [9,47], is that proper cooperation of individuals driven by a common goal can generate a new group-self with superior collective intelligence. However, the formation of such a collective self requires that each of the individuals will be able to alter its own self and adapt it to that of the group?s (Appendix A). Information-Based Artificial Intelligence vs. Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence We propose to associate (vs. define) meaning-based, natural intelligence with: conduction of semantic and pragmatic communication, assignment and generation of meaning, formation of self-identity (distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic meaning) and of associated identity (i.e., of the group the individual belongs to), identification of natural intelligence in other organisms, intentional behavior, decision-making and intentionally designed self alterations. Below we explain why this features are not likely to be sustained by a universal Turing machine, irrespective of how advanced its information-based artificial intelligence might be. Turing set his original imitation game to be played by machine rules: 1. The selfidentities are not allowed to be altered during the game. So, for example, the cooperators can not alter together their associated identity - the strategy bacteria adopt to identify defectors. 2. The players use fixed-in-time, universal-machine-like language (no semantic and pragmatic aspects). In contrast, the strategy bacteria use is to modify their dialect to improve the semantic and pragmatic aspect of their communication. 3. The efficiency of playing the game has no causal drive, i.e., there is no reward or punishment. 4. The time frame within which the game is to be played is not specified. As a result, there is inherent inconsistency in the way Turing formulated his imitation game, and the game can not let the special features of natural intelligence be expressed. As Turing proved, computing machines are equivalent to formal axiomatic systems that are constructed to be clean of meaning. Hence, by definition, no computer can generate its own intrinsic meanings that are distinguishable from externally imposed ones. Which, in turn, implies the obvious ? computers can not have inherent notions of identity and self22 identity. So, if the statement: ?When a machine takes the part of A in this game? refers to the machine as an independent player, the game has to be either inconsistent or undecidable. By independent player we mean the use of some general-purpose machine (i.e., designed without specific task in mind, which is analogous to the construction of a meaning-free, formal axiomatic system). The other possibility is that Turing had in mind a specific machine, specially prepared for the specific game with the specific players in mind. In this case, the formulation of the game has no inconsistency/undecidability, but then the game is about the meaning-based, causality-driven creativity of the designer of the machine and not about the machine itself. Therefore, we propose to interpret the statement ?When a machine takes the part of A? as implying that ?A sends a Pre-designed and Pre-programmed machine to play his role in the specific game?. The performance of a specific machine in a specific game is information-based Artificial Intelligence. The machine can even perform better than some humans in the specific game with agreed-upon, fixed rules (time invariant); it has been designed to play. However, the machine is the product of the meaning-based Natural Intelligence and the causality-driven creativity of its designer. The designer can design different machines according to the causal needs he foresees. Moreover, by learning from his experience and by using purposefully gathered knowledge, he can improve his skills to create better machines. It seems that Turing did realize the essential differences between some of the features we associate here with Natural Intelligence vs. Artificial Intelligence. So, for example, he wouldn?t have classified Deep Blue as an Intelligent Machine. In an unpublished report from 1948, entitled ?Intelligent Machinery?, machine intelligence is discussed mainly from the perspective of human intelligence. In this report, Turing explains that intelligence requires learning, which in turn requires the machine to have sufficient flexibility, including selfalteration capabilities (the equivalent of today?s neuro-plasticity). It is further implied that the machine should have the freedom to make mistakes. The importance of reward and punishment in the machine learning is emphasized (see the report summary shown below). Turing also relates the machine?s learning capabilities to what today would be referred to as genetic algorithm, one which would fit the recent realizations about the genome (Appendix F). In this regard, we point out that organisms? decision-making and creativity which are based on learning from experience (explained below) must involve learning from past 23 mistakes. Hence, an inseparable feature of natural intelligence is the freedom to err with readiness to bear the consequences. Beyond Machinery - Games of Natural Intelligence Since the rules of Turing?s imitation game do not let the special features of natural intelligence be expressed the game can not be used to distinguish natural from artificial intelligence. The rules of the game must be modified to let the features of natural intelligence be expressed, but in a manner machines can technically imitate. First, several kinds of communication channels that can allow exchange of meaning-bearing messages should be included, in addition to the written messages. Clearly, all communication channels should be such that can be transferred and synthesized by a machine; speech, music, pictures and physiological information (like that used in polygraph tests) are some examples of such channels. We emphasize that a two-way communication is used so, for example, the examiner (I) can present to (B) a picture he asked (A) to draw and vice versa. Second, the game should be set to test the ability of human (I) vs. machine (I) to make correct identification of (A) and (B), instead of testing the ability of human (A) vs. machine (A) to cause human (I) false identifications. Third, the game should start after the 24 examiner (I) has had a training period. Namely, a period of time during which he is let to communicate with (A) and (B) knowing who is who, to learn from his own experience about their identities. Both the training period and the game itself should be for a specified duration, say an hour each. The training period can be used by the examiners in various ways; for example, he can expose the players to pictures, music pieces, extracts from literature, and ask them to describe their impressions and feelings. He can also ask each of them to reflect on the response of the other one or explain his own response. Another efficient training can be to ask each player to create his own art piece and reflect on the one created by the other. The training period can also be used by the examiner (I) to train (B) in new games. For example, he could teach the other players a new game with built-in rewards for the three of them to play. What we suggest is a way to instill in the imitation game intrinsic meaning for the player by reward and decision-making. The game can be played to test the ability of machine (I) vs. human (I) to distinguish correctly between various kinds of identities: machine vs. human (in this case, the machine should be identical to the one who plays the examiner), or two associated human identities (like gender, age, profession etc). The above are examples of natural intelligence games we expect machinery to lose, and as such they can provide proper tests to distinguish their artificial intelligence from the natural intelligence of living systems. Let Bacteria Play the Game of Natural Intelligence We proposed that even bacteria have natural intelligence beyond machinery: unlike a machine, a bacterial colony can improve itself by alteration of gene expression, cell differentiation and even generation of new inheritable genetic ?tools?. During colonial development, bacteria collectively use inherited knowledge together with causal information it gathers from the environment, including other organisms (Appendix A). For that, semantic chemical messages are used by the bacteria to conduct dialogue, to cooperatively assess their situation and make contextual decisions accordingly for better colonial adaptability (Appendix B). Should these notions be understood as useful metaphors or as disregarded reality? 25 Another example of natural intelligence game could be a Bridge game between a machine and human team playing the game against a team of two human players. This version of the game is similar to the real life survival ?game? between cooperators and cheaters (cooperative behavior of organisms goes hand in hand with cheating, i.e., selfish individuals who take advantage of the cooperative effort). An efficient way cooperators can single out the defectors is by using their natural intelligence - semantic and pragmatic communication for collective alteration of their own identity, to outsmart the cheaters who use their own natural intelligence for imitating the identity of the cooperators [111-114]. In Appendix A we describe how even bacteria use communication to generate evolvable self-identity together with special ?dialect?, so fellow bacteria can find each one in the crowd of strangers (e.g., biofilms of different colonies of the same and different species). For that, they use semantic chemical messages that can initiate specific alteration only with fellow bacteria and with shared common knowledge (Appendix C). So in the presence of defectors they modify their self-identity in a way unpredictable to an external observer not having the same genome and specific gene-expression state. The external observer can be other microorganisms, our immune system or our scientific tools. The experimental challenge to demonstrate the above notions is to devise an identity game bacteria can play to test if bacteria can conduct a dialogue to recognize self vs. non-self [111-114]. Inspired by Turing?s imitation game, we adopted a new conceptual methodology to let the bacteria tell us about their self-identity, which indeed they do: Bacterial colonies from the same culture are grown under the same growth conditions to show that they exhibit similar-looking patterns (Fig 1), as is observed during self-organization of azoic systems [7,8,99,100]. However, unlike for azoic systems, each of the colonies develops its own self identity in a manner no azoic system is expected to do. 26 Fig 1. Observed level of reproducibility during colonial developments: Growth of two colonies of the Paenibacillus vortex taken from the same parent colony and under the same growth conditions. For that, the next stage is to growth of four colonies on the same plate. In one case all are taken from the same parent colony and in the other case they are taken from two different yet similar-looking colonies (like those shown in Fig 1). In preliminary experiments we found that the growth patterns in the two cases are significantly different. These observations imply that the colonies can recognize if the other colonies came from the same parent colony or from a different one. We emphasize that this is a collective phenomenon, and if the bacteria taken from the parent colonies are first grown as isolated bacteria in fluid, the effect is washed out. It has been proposed that such colonial self-identity might be generated during the several hours of stationary ?embryonic stage? or collective training duration of the colonies between the time they are placed on the new surface and start to expand. During this duration, they collectively generate their own specific colonial self identity [62,63]. These findings revive Schr?dinger?s dilemma, about the conversion of genetic information (embedded in structural coding) into a functioning organism. A dilemma largely assumed to be obsolete in light of the new experimental findings in life sciences when combined with the Neo-Darwinian the Adaptive Complex Systems paradigms [51,115-120]. The latter, currently the dominant paradigm in the science of complexity is based on the ?top-level emergence? principle which has evolved from Anderson?s constructivism (?More is Different? [53]). 27 Beyond Neo-Darwinism ? Symbiogenesis on All Levels Accordingly it is now largely assumed that all aspects of life can in principle be explained solely on the basis of information storage in the structure of the genetic material. Hence, an individual bacterium, bacterial colony or any eukaryotic organism is in principle analogous to a pre-designed Turing machine. In this analogy, the environment provides energy (electric power of the computer) and absorbs the metabolic waste products (the dissipated heat), and the DNA is the program that runs on the machine. Unlike in an ordinary Turing machine, the program also has instructions for the machine to duplicate and disassemble itself and assemble many machines into an advanced machine ? the dominant Top-Level Emergence view in the studies of complex systems and system-biology based on the Neo-Darwinian paradigm. However, recent observations during bacterial cooperative self-organization show features that can not be explained by this picture (Appendix A). Ben Jacob reasoned that Anderson?s constructivism is insufficient to explain bacterial self-organization. Hence, it should be extended to a ?More is Different on All Levels? or all-level generativism [9]. The idea is that biotic self-organization involves self-organization and contextual alteration of the constituents of the biotic system on all levels (down to the genome). The alterations are based on stored information, external information, information processing and collective decisionmaking following semantic and pragmatic communication on all levels. Intentional alterations (neither pre-designed nor due to random changes) are possible, however, only if they are performed on all levels. Unlike the Neo-Darwinian based, top-level emergence, alllevel emergence can account for the features associated with natural intelligence. For example, in the colony, communication allows collective alterations of the intracellular state of the individual bacteria, including the genome, the intracellular gel and the membrane. For bacterial colony as an organism, all-level generativism requires collective ? natural genetic engineering? together with ?creative genomic webs? [45-47]. In a manuscript entitled: ?Bacterial wisdom, G?del?s theorem and Creative Genomic Webs?, Ben Jacob refers to the following special genomic abilities of individual bacteria when being the building agents of a colony. 28 In the prologue we quoted Margulis? and Sagan?s criticisms of the incompleteness of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm and the crucial role of symbiogenesis in the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes and the evolution of the latter. With regard to eukaryotic organisms, an additional major difficulty arises from the notion that all the required information to sustain the life of the organism is embedded in the structure of its genetic code: this information seems useless without the surrounding cellular machinery [123,124]. While the structural coding contains basic instructions on how to prepare many components of the machinery ? namely, proteins ? it is unlikely to contain full instructions on how to assemble them into multi-molecular structures to create a functional cell. We mentioned mitochondria that carry their own genetic code. In addition, membranes, for example, contain lipids, which are not internally coded but are absorbed from food intake according to the functional state of the organism. Thus, we are back to Schr?dinger?s chicken-and-egg paradox ? the coding parts of the DNA require pre-existing proteins to create new proteins and to make them functional. The problem may be conceptually related to Russell?s self-reference paradoxes and G?del?s theorems: it is possible in principle to construct mapping between the genetic information and statements about the genetic information. Hence, according to a proper version of G?del?s theorem (for finite system [47]), the structural coding can not be both complete and self-consistent for the organism to live, replicate and have programmed cell death. In this sense, the Neo-Darwinian paradigm can not be both self-consistent and complete to describe 29 the organism?s lifecycle. In other words, within this paradigm, the transition from the coding part of the DNA to the construction of a functioning organism is metaphorically like the construction of mathematics from a formal axiomatic system. This logical difficulty is discussed by Winfree [125] in his review on Delbruck?s book ?Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology?. 30 New discoveries about the role of transposable elements and the abilities of the Junk DNA to alter the genome (including generation of new genes) during the organism?s lifecycle support the new picture proposed in the above mentioned paper. So, it seems more likely now that indeed the Junk DNA and transposable elements provide the necessary mechanisms for the formation of creative genomic webs. The human genome project provided additional clues about the functioning of the genome, and in particular the Junk DNA in light of the unexpectedly low number of coding genes together with equally unexpectedly high numbers of transposable elements, as described in Appendix B. These new findings on the genomic level together with the new understanding about the roles played by mitochondria [126-132] imply that the current Neo-Darwinian paradigm should be questioned. Could it be that mitochondria ? the intelligent intracellular bacterial colonies in eukaryotic cells, provide a manifestation of symbiogenesis on all levels? Learning from Experience ? Harnessing the Past to Free the Future Back to bacteria, the colony as a whole and each of the individual bacteria are continuously self-organized open systems: The colonial self-organization is coupled to the internal selforganization process each of the individual bacteria. Three intermingled elements are involved in the internal process: 1. genetic components, including the chromosomal genetic sequences and additional free genetic elements like transposons and plasmids. 2. the 31 membrane, including the integrated proteins and attached networks of proteins, etc. 3. The intracellular gel, including the machinery required to change its composition, to reorganize the genetic components, to reorganize the membrane, to exchange matter, energy and information with the surrounding, etc. In addition, we specifically follow the assumption that usable information can be stored in its internal state of spatio-temporal structures and functional correlations. The internal state can be self-altered, for example via alterations of the part of the genetic sequences which store information about transcription control. Hence, the combination of the genome and the intra-cellular gel is a system with self reference. Hence, the following features of genome cybernetics [9,50] can be sustained. 1. storage of past external information and its contextual internal interpretation. 2. storage of past information about the system?s past selected and possible states. 3. hybrid digital-analog processing of information. 4. hybrid hardware-software processing of information. The idea is that the hardware can be self-altered according to the needs and outcome of the information processing, and part of the software is stored in the structure of the hardware itself, which can be self-altered, so the software can have self reference and change itself. Such mechanisms may take a variety of different forms. The simplest possibility is by ordinary genome regulation ? the state of gene expression and communication-based collective gene expression of many organisms. For eukaryotes, the mitochondria acting like a bacterial colony can allow such collective gene expression of their own independent genes. In this regard, it is interesting to note that about 2/3 of the mitochondria? s genetic material is not coding for proteins. Genome cybernetics has been proposed to explain the reconstruction of the coding DNA nucleus in ciliates [133,134]. The specific strains studied have two nuclei, one that contains only DNA coded for proteins and one only non-coding DNA. Upon replication, the coding nucleus disintegrates and the non-coding is replicated. After replication, the non-coding nucleus builds a new coding nucleus. It has been shown that it is done using the transposable elements in a computational process. More recent work shows that transposable elements can effectively re-program the genome between replications [135]. In yeast, these elements can insert themselves into messenger 32 RNA and give rise to new proteins without eliminating old ones[136]. These findings illustrate that rather than wait for mutations to occur randomly, cells can apparently keep some genetic variation on tap and move them to ?hard disk? storage in the coding part of the DNA if they turn out to be beneficial over several life cycles. Some observations hint that the collective intelligence of the intracellular mitochondrial colonies play a crucial role in these processes of self-improvement [128-132]. Here, we further assume the existence of the following features: 5. storage of the information and the knowledge explicitly in its internal spatiotemporal structural organizations. 6. storage of the information and the knowledge implicitly in functional organizations (composons) in its corresponding high dimensional space of affinities. 7. continuous generation of models of itself by reflection forward (in the space of affinities) its stored knowledge. The idea of high dimensional space of affinities (renormalized correlations) has been developed by Baruchi and Ben Jacob [137], for analyzing multi-channel recorded activity (from gene expression to human cortex). They have shown the coexistence of functional composons (functional sub-networks) in the space of affinities for recorded brain activity. With this picture in mind, the system?s models of itself are not necessarily dedicated ?units? of the system in the real space but in the space of affinities, so the models should be understood as a caricature of the system in real space including themselves - caricature in the sense that maximal meaningful information is represented. In addition, the system?s hierarchical organization enables the smaller scales to contain information about the larger scale they themselves form ? metaphorically, like the formation of meanings of words in sentences as we explain in Appendix B. The larger scale, the analog of the sentence and the reader?s previous knowledge, selects between the possible lower scale organizations. The system?s real time is represented in the models by a faster internal time, so at every moment in real time the system has information about possible caricatures of itself at later times. 33 The reason that internal multiple composons (that serve as models) can coexist has to do with the fact that going backward in time is undecidable for external observer (e.g., solving backward reaction-diffusion equations is undetermined). So what we suggest is that, by projecting the internally stored information about the past (which can not be reconstruct by external observer), living organisms utilize the fact that going backward in time is undetermined for regulated freedom of response: to have a range of possible courses of future behavior from which they have the freedom to select intentionally according to their past experience, present circumstances, and inherent predictions of the future. In contrast, the fundamental assumption in the studies of complex adaptive systems according to Gell-Mann [115], is that the behavior of organisms is determined by accumulations of accidents. Any entity in the world around us, such as an individual human being, owes its existence not only to the simple fundamental law of physics and the boundary condition on the early universe but also to the outcomes of an inconceivably long sequence of probabilistic events, each of which could have turned out differently. Now a great many of those accidents, for instance most cases of the bouncing of a particular molecule in a gas to the right rather than the left in a molecular collision, have few ramifications for the future coarse-grained histories. Sometimes, however, an accident can have widespread consequences for the future, although those are typically restricted to particular regions of space and time. Such a "frozen accident" produces a great deal of mutual algorithmic information among various parts or aspects of a future coarsegrained history of the universe, for many such histories and for various ways of dividing them up. We propose that organisms use stored relevant information to generate an internal mixed yet decomposable (separable) state of multiple options analogous to quantum mechanical superposition of states .In this sense the process of decision-making to select a specific response to external stimuli is conceptually like the projection of the wave function in quantum mechanical measurement. There are two fundamental differences, though: 1. In quantum measurement, the external observer directly causes the collapse of the system on a specific eigenstate he pre-selects. Namely, the eigenstate is predetermined while its corresponding eigenvalue is not. In the organism?s decision-making, the external stimuli initiate the selection of a specific state (collapse on a specific response). The selected state is in principle unknown directly to an external observer. The initiated internal decomposition of the mixed states and the selection of a specific one are performed according to stored past information. 2. In quantum measurement, the previous possible (expected) eigenvalues of the other eigenstates are erased and assigned new uncertainties. In the organism? s decision 34 making the process is qualitatively different: the external stimuli initiate decomposition of the mixed states by the organism itself. The information about the other available options is stored after the selection of the specific response. Therefore, the unselected past options are expected to affect consequent decision-making. Decomposable Mixed State of Multiple-Options ? A Metaphor or Testable Reality? The above picture is rejected on the grounds that in principle the existence of a mixed and decomposable state of multiple options can not be tested experimentally. In this sense, the objection is similar in spirit to the objections to the existence of the choice function in mathematics (Appendix D), and the wave function in physics (Appendix E). The current experimental methodology in life science (disintegrating the organism or exposing it to lethal stress), is conceptually similar to the notion of ? strong measurements? or ?destructive measurements? in quantum mechanics in which the wave function is forced to collapse. Therefore, the existence of an internal state decomposable only by the organism itself can not be tested by that approach. A new conceptual methodology is required, of protective biotic measurements. For example, biofluoremetry can be used to measure the intracellular spatio-temporal organization and functional correlations in a living organism exposed to weak stress. Conceptually, fluoremetry is similar to quantum non-demolition and weak stress is similar to the notion of weak quantum measurements. Both allow the measurement of the quantum state of a system without forcing the wave function to collapse. Bacterial collective learning when exposed to non-lethal levels of antibiotics provide an example of protective biotic measurements (Appendix E). 35 Fig 2. Confocal image of mitochondria within a single cultured rat cortical astrocyte stained with the calcium-sensitive dye rhod-2 which partitions into mitochondria, permitting direct measurements of intramitochondrial calciuum concentration (curtsey of Michael Duchen). It should be kept in mind that the conceptual analogy with quantum mechanics is subtle and can be deceiving rather than inspiring if not properly used. For clarification, let us consider the two-slit experiment for electrons. When the external observer measures through which of the slits the electron passes, the interference pattern is washed out - the measurement causes the wave function of the incoming electron to collapse on one of the two otherwise available states. Imagine now an equivalent two-slit experiment for organisms. In this thought experiment, the organisms arrive at a wall with two closely located narrow open gates. Behind the wall there are many bowls of food placed along an arc so that they are all at equal distance from the gates. The organisms first choose through which of the two gates to pass and then select one bowl of food. The experiment is performed with many organisms, and the combined decisions are presented in a histogram of the selected bowls. In the control experiment, two independent histograms are measured, for each door separately (no decisionmaking is required). The distribution when the two gates are open is compared with the sum of the distributions for the single gates. A statistically significant difference will indicate that past unselected options can influence consequent decision-making even if the following decision involves a different choice altogether (gates vs. food bowls). 36 Upon completion of this monograph, the development of a Robot-Scientist has just been reported [138]. The machine was given the problem of discovering the function of different genes in yeast, to demonstrate its ability to generate a set of hypotheses from what is known about biochemistry and then design experiments and interpret the results (assign meaning) without human help. Does this development provide the ultimate proof that there is no distinction between Artificial Intelligence and Natural Intelligence? Obviously, advanced automated technology interfaced with learning software can have important contribution. It may replace human researchers from doing what machines can do, thus freeing them to be more creative and to devote more effort to their beyond-machinery thinking. We don?t expect, however, that a robot scientist will be able to design experiments to test, for example, self-identity and decision-making, for the simple reason that it could not grasp these concepts. Epilogue ? From Bacteria Shalt Thou Learn Mutations as the causal driving force for the emergence of the diversity and complexity of organisms and biosystems became the most fundamental principle in life sciences ever since Darwin gave mutations a key role in natural selection. Consequently, research in life sciences has been guided by the assumption that the complexity of life can become comprehensible if we accumulate sufficient amounts of detailed information. The information is to be deciphered with the aid of advanced mathematical method within the Neo-Darwinian schemata. To quote Gell-Mann, Life can perfectly well emerge from the laws of physics plus accidents, and mind, from neurobiology. It is not necessary to assume additional mechanisms or hidden causes. Once emergence is considered, a huge burden is lifted from the inquiring mind . We don't need something more in order to get something more. This quote represents the currently, dominant view of life as a unique physical phenomenon that began as a colossal accident, and continues to evolve via sequences of accidents selected by random number generators ? the omnipotent idols of science. We reason that, according to 37 this top-level emergence picture, organisms could not have evolved to have meaning-based, natural intelligence beyond that of machinery. Interestingly, Darwin himself didn?t consider mutations to be necessarily random, and thought the environment can trigger adaptive changes in organisms ? a notion associated with Lamarckism. Darwin did comment, however, that it is reasonable to treat alterations as random, so long as we do not know their origin. He says: ?I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations were due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation? lead to the conclusion that variability is generally related to the conditions of life to which each species has been exposed during several successive generations?. In 1943, Luria and Delbruck performed a cornerstone experiment to prove that random mutation exist by exposing bacteria to lethal conditions ? bacteriophage that immediately kills non-resistant bacteria. Therefore, only cells with pre-existing specific mutations could survive. The other cells with didn?t have the chance to alter their self - a possibility that could not be ruled out by the experiments. Nevertheless, these experiments were taken as a crucial support for the Neo-Darwinian dogma which states that all mutations are random, and can occur only during DNA replication. To bridge between these experiments, Turing ?s imitation game and the notion of weak measurements in quantum mechanics, we suggest to test natural intelligence by first giving the organisms a chance to learn from hard but non-lethal conditions. We also proposed to let the bacteria play identity game proper for testing their natural intelligence, similar in spirit to the real life games played between different colonies and even with other organisms [139]. In Turing?s footsteps, we propose to play his imitation game with the reverse goal in mind. Namely, human players participate in the game to learn about themselves. By playing this reverse game with bacteria, - Nature?s fundamental organisms from which all life emerged - we should be able to learn about the very essence of our self. This is especially so when keeping in mind that the life, death and well being of each of our cells depend on the cooperation of its own intelligent bacterial colony ? the mitochondria. Specifically, we believe that understanding bacterial natural intelligence as manifested in mitochondria might be crucial for understanding the meaning-based natural intelligence of the immune system 38 and the central nervous system, the two intelligent systems we use for interacting with other organisms in the game of life. Indeed, it has recently been demonstrated that mice with identical nuclear genomes can have very different cognitive functioning if they do not have the same mitochondria in their cytoplasm. The mitochondria are not transferred with the nucleus during cloning procedures [140]. To quote Schr?dinger, Democritus introduces the intellect having an argument with the senses about what is 'real'. The intellect says; 'Ostensibly there is color, ostensibly sweetness, ostensibly bitterness, actually only atoms and the void.' To which the senses retort; 'Poor intellect, do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat.' Acknowledgment We thank Ben Jacob?s student, Itay Baruchi, for many conversations about the potential implications of the space of affinities, the concept he and Eshel have recently developed together. Some of the ideas about bacterial self-organization and collective intelligence were developed in collaboration with Herbert Levine. We benefited from enlightening conversations, insights and comments by Michal Ben-Jacob, Howard Bloom, Joel Isaacson, Yuval Neeman and Alfred Tauber. The conceptual ideas could be converted into concrete observations thanks to the devoted and precise work of Inna Brainis. This work was supported in part by the Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems. Personal Thanks by Eshel Ben-Jacob About twenty-five years ago, when I was a physics graduate student, I read the book ?The Myth of Tantalus? and discovered there a new world of ideas. I went to seek the author, and found a special person with vast knowledge and human approach. Our dialogue led to the establishment of a unique, multidisciplinary seminar, where themes like ?the origin of creativity? and ?mind and matter? were discussed from different perspectives. Some of the questions have remained with me ever since, and are discussed in this monograph. 39 Over the years I have had illuminating dialogues with my teacher Yakir Aharonov about the foundations of quantum mechanics and with my friend Adam Tenenbaum about logic and philosophy. In my Post-Doctoral years, I was very fortunate to meet the late Uri Merry, who introduced me to the world of social science and linguistics and to Buber?s philosophy. Among other things, we discussed the role of semantic and pragmatic communication in the emergence of individual and group self. References [1] Schr?dinger, E. (1943) What is life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Based on lectures delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin, in February 1943. home.att.net/~p.caimi/Life.doc ; (1944) What is life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cel Cambridge University Press. (1958) Mind and Matter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (1992) What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell with Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches with forward by R. Penrose [2] Delbr?ck, M. (1946) Heredity and variations in microorganisms. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol., 11 ; Delbruck, M. (1986) Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology Blackwell Scientific Publication [3]Winfree,A. T. (1988) Book review on Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology Bul. Math. Biol 50, 193-207 [4] Hemmer, P.C., Holden, H. and ratkje, S.K. (1996) The Collected Work of Lars Onsager World Scientific [5] Prigogine, I. and Nicolis, G. (1977) Self-organization in NonEequlibrium Systems;From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations Wiley&Sons Prigogine, I. (1980) >From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences H. Freeman&Co [6] Cross, M.C. and Hohenberg, P.C. (1993) Pattern formation outside of equilibrium , Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 [7] Ben Jacob, and Garik, P. (1990) The formation of patterns in non-equilibrium growth Nature 33 523-530 [8] Ben Jacob, E. (1993) From snowflake formation to growth of bacterial colonies. I. Diffusive patterning in azoic systems Contemp Physics 34 247-273 ; (1997) II. Cooperative formation of complex colonial patterns Contem. Physics 38 205-241 40 [9] Ben-Jacob, E. (2003) Bacterial self-organization: co-enhancement of complexification and adaptability in a dynamic environment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A361,1283-1312 [10] Schweitzer, F. (1997) Self-Organization of Complex Structures from Individual to Collective Dynamics Gordon&Breach [11] Ball, P. (1999) The Self-Made Tapestry: Pattern Formation in Nature Oxford University Press [12] Camazine, S. et al (2001) Self-Organization in Biological Systems Princeton University Press [13] Turing, A.M. (1952) The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (London), 237, 37-72, 1952. [14] Saunders, P.T. (1992) Morphogenesis: Collected Works of AM Turing Vol 3 of Furbank, P.N. (1992) The Collected Work of A. M. Turing North Holand Pulications [15] Turing, A.M. Unpublished material Turing archive at King's College Cambridge, and the Manchester National Archive for the History of Computing [16]Lovelock, James. 1995. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Lovelock, James. 1988. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. New York: W.W. Norton. [17] Margulies, L. and Dolan, M.F. (2002) Early life, Jones and Bartlett ; (1998) Five Kingdoms ; (2002) Early Life: Evolution on the Precambrian Earth (with Dolan, M. F.) ; (1997) Microcosmos; Four Billion Years of Evolution from Our Microbial Ancestors (with Sagan, D.) [18] Sahtouris, E. (2001) What Our Human Genome Tell Us? EcoISP ; Sahtouris, Elisabet, with Swimme, Brian and Liebes, Sid. (1998) A Walk Through Time: From Stardust to Us. Wiley: New York.; Harman, Willis and Sahtouris, Elisabet. 1998. Biology Revisioned. North Atlantic Books: Berkeley, CA. 41 [19]E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, H. Levine, Cooperative self-organization of microorganisms, Adv. Phys. 49 (2000) 395-554 [20]Microbiology: A human perspective E.W. Nester, D.G. Anderson, C.E. Roberts, N.N Pearsall, M.T. Nester, (3rd Edition), McGraw Hill, New York 2001; [21]Shapiro, J.A. and Dworkin, M. (Eds.), (1997) Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms Oxford University Press, New York [22]Shapiro, J.A. (1988) Bacteria as multicellular organisms, Sci. Am. 258 62-69; J. Shapiro, J.A. (1995) The significance of bacterial colony patterns, BioEssays, 17 597- 607. Shapiro, J.A. (1998) Thinking about bacterial populations as multicellular organisms, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 52 81-104 [23] Losick, R. and Kaiser, D. (1997) Why and how bacteria communicate, Sci. Am. 276 68- 73; Losick, R. and Kaiser, D. (1993) How and Why Bacteria talk to each other, Cell 73 873-887 [24]Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I. and Gutnick, D.L. (1998) Cooperative organization of bacterial colonies: From genotype to morphotype. Annu. Rev. Microbiol., 52 779-806 [25] Rosenberg, E. (Ed.), (1999) Microbial Ecology and Infectious Disease, ASM Press [26] Crespi, B.J. (2001) The evolution of social behaviour in microorganisms. TrendsEcol. Evol. 16, 178-183 [27] Kolenbrander, P.E. et al (2002) Communication among oral bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 66, 486-505 [28] Ben-Jacob, E. et al. (1994) Generic modeling of cooperative growth patterns in bacterial colonies. Nature 368, 46-49 [29] Matsushita, M. and Fujikawa, H. (1990) Diffusion-limited growth in bacterial colony formation. Physica A 168, 498-506 [30] Ohgiwari, M. et al. (1992) Morphological changes in growth of bacterial colony patterns. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 61, 816-822 [31] Komoto, A. et al (2003) Growth dynamics of Bacillus circulans colony. J. Theo. Biology 225, 91-97 [32] Di Franco, C. et al. (2002) Colony shape as a genetic trait in the pattern-forming Bacillus mycoides. BMC Microbiol 2(1):33 [33]Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I. and A. Czir?k. (1997) Smart bacterial colonies. In Physics of Biological Systems: From Molecules to Species, Lecture Notes in Physics, pages 307-324. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 42 [34]Ben-Jacob, E. et al. (1995) Complex bacterial patterns. Nature, 373:566-567, [35]Budrene, E.O. and Berg, H.C. (1991) Complex patterns formed by motile cells of Esherichia coli. Nature, 349:630-633 ; (1995) Dynamics of formation of symmetrical patterns by chemotactic bacteria. Nature, 376:49-53 [36]Blat, Y.and Eisenbach, M. (1995). Tar-dependent and -independent pattern formation by Salmonella typhimurium . J. Bac., 177(7):1683-1691 [37] S. E. Luria and M. Delbr?ck. Mutations of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance. Genetics, 28:491-511, 1943. [38] Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton, New York, 1986. The Extended Phenotype. W.H. Freeman, Oxford, 1972. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1976. [39]Gould, S. J. (1977) Ever Since Darwin. W.W. Norton, New York [40]Jacob, J. (1993) The Logic of Life, A History of Heredity. Princeton University Press. [41]Joset, F. and Guespin-Michel, J. (1993) Prokaryotic Genetics. Blackwell Scientific Publishing, London [42]Keller, E.F. (1983) A Feeling for The Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. W.H. Freeman&Company [43] Margulis, L. (1992) Symbiosis in Cell Evolution: Microbial Communities in the Archean and Proterozoic Eons W.H. Freeman&Company ;Margulis, L., Sagan, D. and Morrison, P. (1997) Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution Copernicus Books ; Margulis, L. Sagan, D. (1999) Symbiotic Planet A New Look At EvolutionBasic Books [44] Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. (2003) Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species Perseus Publishing ; Chapman, M.J. and Margulis, L. (1998) Morphogenesis and symbiogenesis Intl. Microbiol. 1 319-329 . [45] Shapiro, J.A. (1992) Natural genetic engineering in evolution. Genetica 86, 99-111 [46]Wesson, R. (1993) Beyond Natural Selection. The MIT Press, London [47] Ben-Jacob, E. (1998) Bacterial wisdom, Godel?s theorem and creative genomic webs. Physica A 248, 57-76 [48] Duchen, M.R., Leyssens, A. and Crompton, M. (1998). Transient mitochondrial depolarisations in response to focal SR calcium release in single rat cardiomyocytes., J. Cell Biol., 142(4), 1-14. 43 [49] Leyssens, A., Nowicky, A.V., Patterson, D.L., Crompton, M., and Duchen, M.R., (1996). The relationship between mitochondrial state, ATP hydrolysis, [Mg2+]i and [Ca2+]i studied in isolated rat cardiomyocytes. J. Physiol., 496, 111-128 [50] Palmer, J.D. (1997) The Mitochondrion that Time Forgot, Nature, 387. 454-455. [51] Holland, J.H. (2000) Emergence from chaos to order Oxford University Press, [52] Kurzweil, R. (1992) The Age of Intelligent Machines MIT Press ; (2000) The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence Penguin [53] Anderson, P. (1972) More is different Science 177, 393-396 [54]Turing, A.M. (1948) Intelligent Machinery unpublished report. [55]Turing, A.M. (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence Mind 59 no 236, 433-460 [56] Siegelmann, H.T. (1995) Computation beyond the Turing machine. Science, 268:545- 548 [57]Turing, A.M. (1936) On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem Proc. London. Math. Soc. 42, 230-265 [58]G?del, K. (1931) On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems Mathematik und Physik, 38 173-198 [59]Nagel, E. and Newman, J.R.(1958) Godel's Proof New York University Press ; (1995) Godel?s Collected Work, Unpublished Essays and Lectures Oxford University Press [60]Hofstadter, D.R. (1979) G?del, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid basic Books [61]Chaitin, G.J. (2002) Computers, Paradoxes and the foundations of mathematics American Scientist March-April issue [62] Ben Jacob, E. et al. (2002) Bacterial cooperative organization under antibiotic stress. Physica A 282, 247-282 44 [63]Golding, I. and Ben Jacob, E. (2001) The artistry of bacterial colonies and the antibiotic crisis in Coherent Structures in Complex Systems. Selected Papers of the XVII Sitges Conference on Statistical Mechanics. Edited by Reguera, D., Bonilla, L.L. and Rubi, J.M. [64] Alimova. A. et al. (2003) Native Fluorescence and Excitation Spectroscopic Changes in Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus Bacteria Subjected to Conditions of Starvation Applied Optics, 42, 4080-4087 [65]Katz, A. et al. (2002) Noninvasive native fluorescence imaging of head and neck tumors, Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, 1, 9-16 Applied Optics, Volume 42, Issue 19, 4080-4087 July 2003 [66]Deutsch, M.; Zurgil, N. and Kaufman, M. (2000) Spectroscopic Monitoring of Dynamic Processes in Individual Cells. In: Laser Scanning Technology. Oxford, Oxford University Press [67] Tauber, A. (1991) Organisms and the Origin of Self Durdercht Kluwer Academic Publishers [68] Tauber, A. (1994) The Immune Self: Theory or Metaphor? Cambridge University Press [69]Shoham, S.G. (1979) The Myth of Tantalus: scaffolding for an ontological personality University of Queensland Press [70]Bohm, D. (1996) On Dialogue, Routledge [71]Merry, U. (1995) Coping with uncertainty, Praeger Publishers [72]Rose, S. (1976) The Conscious Brain. Vintage Books, New-York, 1976. [73]Penrose, R. (1996) Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness Oxford University Press ; Penrose, R. and Gardner, M. (2002) The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics Oxford University Press ; Penrose, R. (2000) The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (with Longair, M., Shimony, A., Cartwright, N. and Hawking, S.) Cambridge University Press [74] Bloom, H. (2001) Global Brain John Wiley&sons 45 [75] Kaufman, S. (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self- Organization and Complexity Oxford University Press ; (2002) Investigations Oxford University Press [76] Sperber D. and Wilson, D. Basil Blackwell, (1986) Relevance, Communication and Cognition, Basil Blackwell Oxford [77] Aitchison, J. and Atchison, J. (1999) Linguistics, NTC Contemporary Pub. Group. Chicago [78] Grice, H.P. (1989) Studies in the Ways of Words, Academic Press, New York [79]Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford University Press, New York. [80] Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: HarperCollins [81]Jones, S. (1993) The Language of The Genes. Flaming, Glasgow [82]Peng, C. K. et al. (1992)Long-range correlations in nucleotide sequences. Nature, 356:168-171 [83] Mantegen, R.N. et al. (1994) Linguistic features of noncoding DNA sequences. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3169-3172 [84] Ptashne, M. and Gann, A. (2002) Genes and signals, Cold Spring Harbor Press [85]. Nowak, M.A et al. (2002) Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature 417, 611-617 [86] Searls, D.B. (2002) The Language of genes. Nature 420, 211-217 [87] Losick, R. and Kaiser, D. (1997) Why and how bacteria communicate. Sci. Am. 276, 68-73 [88] Wirth, R. et al.. (1996) The Role of Pheromones in Bacterial Interactions. Trends Microbiol. 4, 96-103 [89] Salmond, G.P.C. et al. (1995) The bacterial enigma: Cracking the code of cell-cell communication. Mol. Microbiol. 16, 615-624 [90] Dunny, G.M. and Winans, S.C. (1999) Cell-Cell Signaling in Bacteria, ASM Press [91] Shimkets, L.J. (1999) Intercellular signaling during fruiting-body development of Myxococcus xanthus. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 53, 525-549 [92] Bassler, B.L. (2002) Small talk: cell-to-cell communication in bacteria. Cell 109, 421-424 46 [93] Ben Jacob, E. et al. (2003) Communication-based regulated freedom of response in bacterial colonies Physica A 330 218-231 [94]Raichman, N. et al. (2004) Engineered self-organization of natural and man-made systems in Continuum Models and Discrete Systems (in press) [95] The Open University (2004) The Clock Work Universe in The Physical World series [96] Collier, John. (2003) Hierarchical Dynamical Information Systems With a Focus on Biology Entropy 5(2): 100-124 ; Holism and Emergence: Dynamical Complexity Defeats Laplace's Demon (unpublished) [97] Swartz, N. (1997) Philosophical Notes URL http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm [98] Hoefer, C. (2004) Causal Determinism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [99] Ben-Jacob, E. and Garik, P. (1990) The formation of patterns in non-equilibrium growth. Nature, 343: 523-530 [100] Ben Jacob, E. and Herbert, L. (2001) The artistry of Nature 409, 985-986 [101] Searle, John R. (1984). Minds, Brains and Science. Harvard University Press [102] Dennett, Daniel C. (1978). Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. [103] Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). The Computer and the Mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. [104]Lucas, J.R. (1964) Minds, Machines and G?del, in Minds and Machines, ed. Alan R. Anderson Englewood Cliffs [105]Dennett, D. (1993). Book Review: Allen Newell, Unified Theories of Cognition, Artificial Intelligence, 59, 285-294. [106]Rapaport, W.J. (1995). Understanding Understanding: Syntactic Semantics and Computational Cognition, Philosophical Perspectives 9. [107] Searl, J.R. (2001) Is the Brain a Digital Computer? McGraw-Hill [108] Kay, K. (2001) Machines and the Mind: Do artificial intelligence systems incorporate intrinsic meaning? The Harvard Brain Vol 8 [109] Lrson, E. Rethinking Deep Blue:Why a Computer Can't Reproduce a Mind Access Research Network Origins & Design Archives 47 [110] Schaeffer, J. and Plaat, A. (1997) Kasparov versus Deep Blue: The Re-match ICCA Journal vol. 20,. 95-102 [110]Nelson, E. (1999) Mathematics and the Mind in Toward a Science of Consciousness - Fundamental Approaches [111] Velicer, G.J. (2003) Social strife in the microbial world. Trends Microbiol. 7, 330-337 [112] Strassmann, (2000) Bacterial Cheaters Nature 404 555-556 [113] Strassmann, J.E. Zhu, Y. and Queller, D.C. (2000) Altruism and social cheating in the social amoeba Dictyostellium dicoideum Nature 408 965-967 [114] Queller, D.C. and Strassmann, J.E. (2002) The many selves of social insects Science 296 311-313 [115]Gell-Mann, M. (1992) Nature Conformable To Herself The Bulletin of the Santa Fe Institute, 7,1, 7-10, (1992) ; (1995/6) Complexity, 1,4. In these publications, Gell-Mann refers to top-level emergence (i.e., the basic constituents are not altered during the emergence process itself) in adaptive complex systems as sufficient mechanism together with the principles of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm to explain Life saying that: ?In my opinion, a great deal of confusion can be avoided, in many different contexts, by making use of the notion of emergence. Some people may ask, "Doesn't life on Earth somehow involve more than physics and chemistry plus the results of chance events in the history of the planet and the course of biological evolution? Doesn't mind, including consciousness or self-awareness, somehow involve more than neurobiology and the accidents of primate evolution? Doesn't there have to be something more?" But they are not taking sufficiently into account the possibility of emergence. Life can perfectly well emerge from the laws of physics plus accidents, and mind, from neurobiology. It is not necessary to assume additional mechanisms or hidden causes. Once emergence is considered, a huge burden is lifted from the inquiring mind. We don't need something more in order to get something more. Although the "reduction" of one level of organization to a previous one ? plus specific circumstances arising from historical accidents ? is possible in principle, it is not by itself an adequate strategy for understanding the world. At each level, new laws emerge that should be studied for themselves; new phenomena appear that should be appreciated and valued at their own level?. He further explains that: ?Examples on Earth of the operation of complex adaptive systems include biological evolution, learning and thinking in animals (including people), the functioning of the immune system in mammals and other vertebrates, the operation of the human scientific enterprise, and the behavior of computers that are built or programmed to evolve strategies?for example by means of neural nets or genetic algorithms. Clearly, complex adaptive systems have a tendency to give rise to other complex adaptive systems?. [116] Gell-Mann, M. (1994) The quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex W. H. Freeman&Company, 48 [117] Wolfram, S. (2002) A New Kind of Science Wolfram Media Inc [118] Langton, C.G.(Editor) (1997) Artificial Life: An Overview (Complex Adaptive Systems) MIT Press [119] Dooley, K. (1997) A Complex Adaptive Systems Model of Organization Change, Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, & Life Science, 1, p. 69-97. [120] Waldrop, M.M. (1992) Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos. Simon and Schuster [121] Mitchell, M. (1998) An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms (Complex Adaptive Systems) MIT Press [122] Holland, J.H. (1995) Hidden Order, Addison-Wesley [123]Berlinski, D. (2001) What Brings a World into Being? Commentary 111, 17-24 [124]Feitelson, D.G. and Treinin, M. (2002) The Blueprint for Life? IEEE Computer, July 34-40. Feitelson's and Treinin's article shows that DNA is a rather incomplete code for life. DNA does not even completely specify a protein. Special peptides, chaperons, are needed to help fold a newly synthesized protein into the correct form. Furthermore, DNA has "multiple readings". A particular transcription is selected based on the mix of the proteins in the cytoplasm ? the current state of a cell. "Thus, DNA is only meaningful in a cellular context in which it can express itself and in which there is an iterative, cyclic relationship between the DNA and the context." [125] Winfree, A.T. (1988) Book review on ?Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology? Bull. Math. Biol. 50 193-207 [126]Abelson, J., Simon, M., Attardi, G. and Chomyn, A. (1995) Mitochondrial Biogenesis and Genetics, Academic Press [127] Holt, I.J.Editor (2003) Genetics of Mitochondrial Diseases Oxford Monographs on Medical Genetics, No. 47 Oxford University Press [128] Knight, R.D., Landweber, L.F., and Yarus, M. (2001) How mitochondria redefine the code J. Mol. Evol. 53 299-313 [129]Burger, G.I. et al (1995) The mitochondrial DNA of the amoeboid protozoon, Acanthamoeba castellanii. Complete sequence, gene content and genome organization J. Mol. Biol. 245:522-537. [130]Gray, M.W. (1992) The endosymbiont hypothesis revisited Mitochondrial Genomes 141:233-357. 49 [131]Wolff, G. et al (1993) Mitochondrial genes in the colorless alga Prototheca wickerhamii resemble plant genes in their exons but fungal genes in their introns. Nucleic Acids Research 21:719-726. ; [132]Wolf, G. et al, (1994) Complete sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of the chlorophyte alga Prototheca wickerhamii. Gene content and genome organization." J. Mol. Biol. 237:74- 86. [133] Landweber, L.F. and Kari, L. (1999) The evolution of cellular computing: natur?s solution to a computational problem, Biosystems 52, 3-13 [134] Kari, L. and Landweber, L.F. (2003) Biocomputing in cilliates. In Cellular Computing, edited by Amos, M. Oxford University Press [135] Makalowski, W. (2003) Not junk after all. Science 300, 1246-7 [136] Lev-Maor, G. et al. (2003) The birth of an alternatively spliced exon: 3 ? splice-site selection in Alu exons. Science 300, 1288-91 [137] Baruchi, I. and Ben Jacob, E. (2004) Hidden causal manifolds in the space of functional correlations Neuroinformatics (invited) To evaluate the affinities for recorded correlations from N locations the Euclidian distances between every two locations in the Ndimension space of correlations are calculated. The affinities are defined as the correlations normalized by the distances in the space of correlations. Next, the information is projected on low dimension manifolds which contain maximal information about the functional correlations. The space of affinities can be viewed as the analog of a Banach space generalization (to include self reference) of quantum field theory. From a mathematical perspective, the composons can be viewed as a Banach-Tarski decomposition of the space of correlations into functional sets according to the Axiom of Choice (Appendix D). [138] Oliver, S.G. et al, (2004) Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist. Nature, 427, 247 - 252, [139] Klironomos, J. N.and Hart M.M. (2001) Animal nitrogen swap for plant carbon Nature 410 651-652 Klironomos, J. N. (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature, 217: 67-70. This study showed that soil microorganisms can significantly affect the growth of plants in natural ecosystems. Furthermore, these microorganisms can determine the degree to which plants spread and invade within communities. [140] Roubertoux, P.L. (2003) Mitochondrial DNA modifies cognition in interaction with the nuclear genome and age in mice Nature genetics 35 65-69 50 [141] Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton [142] Bambrook, G. (1996) Language and computers, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh [143] Warnow, T. (1997) Mathematical approaches to comparative linguistics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 6585-6590 [144] Schechter, E. (1997) Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations Academic Press and references therein [145] Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J. and Vaidman, L. (1996) The Meaning of Protective Measurements Found. Phys. 26, 117 [146]Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J. and Vaidman, L. (1993) Meaning of the Wave Function Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616 [147]Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. (1993)The Schr?dinger Wave is Observable After All! in Quantum Control and Measurement, H. Ezawa and Y. Murayama (eds.) Elsevier Publ [148] Aharonov, Y., Massar, S., Popescu, S., Tollaksen, J. and Vaidman, L. (1996) Adiabatic Measurements on Metastable Systems Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 983 [149] Aharonov, Y. and Bohm, D. (1961) Time in the Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Relation for Time and Energy Phys. Rev. 122, 1649 [150]Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J., Popescu, S. and Vaidman, L. (1990) Superpositions of Time Evolutions of a Quantum System and a Quantum Time-Translation Machine Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2965 [151]Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. (1990) Properties of a Quantum System During the Time Interval Between Two Measurements Phys. Rev. A 41, 11 [152] Orzag, M. (2000) Quantum Optics: Including Noise Reduction, Trapped Ions, Quantum Trajectories, and Decoherence [153]Yamamoto, Y. and Imamoglu, A. (1999) Mesoscopic Quantum Optics Wiley-Interscience [154]Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical Review 47 777 [155] 't Hooft, G. (2002) Determinism beneath quantum mechanics. Preprint xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0212095, (2002). Talk presented at 'Quo vadis quantum mechanics' conference, Temple University, Philadelphia. [156] Ball, P. (2003) Physicist proposes deeper layer of reality Nature News 8 January 51 Appendix A: Bacterial Cooperation ? The Origin of Natural Intelligence Under natural conditions, bacteria tend to cooperatively self-organize into hierarchically structured colonies (109-1013 bacteria each), acting much like multi-cellular organisms capable of coordinated gene expressions, regulated cell differentiation, division of tasks, and more. Moreover, the colony behaves as a new organism with its own new self, although the building blocks are living organisms, each with its own self, as illustrated in the figure below. To achieve the proper balance of individuality and cooperation, bacteria communicate using sophisticated communication methods which include a broad repertoire of biochemical agents, such as simple molecules, polymers, peptides, proteins, pheromones, genetic materials, and even ?cassettes? of genetic information like plasmids and viruses. At the same time, each bacterium has equally intricate intracellular communication means (signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity) of generating intrinsic meaning for contextual interpretation of the chemical messages and for formulating its appropriate response. Collective decision-making: When the growth conditions become too stressful, bacteria can transform themselves into inert, enduring spores. Sporulation is executed collectively and begins only after "consultation" and assessment of the colonial stress as a whole by the individual bacteria. Simply put, starved cells emit chemical messages to convey their stress. Each of the other bacteria uses the information for contextual interpretation of the state of the colony relative to its own situation. Accordingly, each of the cells decides to send a message for or against sporulation. After all the members of the colony have sent out their decisions and read all the other messages, if the ?majority vote? is pro-sporulation, sporulation occurs. Thus, sporulation illustrates semantic and pragmatic levels in bacterial communication, i.e., bacteria can transmit meaning-bearing messages to other bacteria to conduct a dialogue for collective decision making (Appendix B). Although spores can endure extreme conditions (e.g., high temperatures, toxic materials, etc.), all they need for germination is to be placed under mild growth conditions. How can they sense the environment so accurately while in almost non living state, surrounded by a very solid membrane, is an unsolved and very little studied enigma. Exchange of genetic information: Another example of bacterial special abilities has to do with the rapid development of bacterial resistance to antibiotic: The emergence of bacterial strains with multiple drug resistance has become one of the major health problems worldwide. Efficient resistance rapidly evolves through the cooperative response of bacteria, utilizing their sophisticated communication capabilities. Bacteria exchange resistance information within the colony and between colonies, thus establishing a ? creative genomic web?. Maintenance and exchange of the resistance genetic information is costly and might be hazardous to the bacteria. Therefore, the information is given and taken on a ?need to know? basis. In other words, the bacteria prepare, send and accept the genetic message when the information is relevant to their existence. 52 One of the tools for genetic communication is via direct physical transfer of conjugal plasmids. These bacterial mating events, that can also include inter-colonial and even interspecies conjugations, follow chemical courtship played by the potential partners. Naively presented, bacteria with valuable information (say, resistance to antibiotic) emit chemical signals to announce this fact. Bacteria in need of that information, upon receiving the signal, emit pheromone-like peptides to declare their willingness to mate. Sometimes, the decision to mate is followed by an exchange of competence factors (peptides). This preconjugation communication modifies the membrane of the partner cell into a penetrable state needed for conjugation, allowing the exchange of genetic information. Hierarchical organization of vortices: Some bacteria cope with hazards by generating module structures - vortices, which then become building blocks used to construct the colony as a higher entity (Fig 2). To maintain the integrity of the module while it serves as a higherorder building block of the colony requires an advanced level of communication. Messages must be passed to inform each cell in the vortex that it is now playing a more complex role, being a member of the specific module and the colony as a whole, so it can adjust its behavior accordingly. Once the vortex is recognized as a possible spatial structure, it becomes easy to understand that vortices can be used as subunits in a more complex colonial structure for elevated colonial plasticity. In Fig 3, we demonstrate how the P. vortex bacteria utilize their cooperative, complexity-based plasticity to alter the colony structure to cope with antibiotic stress, making use of some simple yet elegant solutions. The bacteria simply increase cooperation (by intensifying both attractive and repulsive chemical signaling), leading to larger vortices (due to stronger attraction) that move faster away from the antibiotic stress (due to stronger repulsion by those left behind). Moreover, once they?ve encountered the antibiotic, the bacteria seem to generate a collective memory so that in the next encounter they can respond even more efficiently. Fig. A1: Hierarchical colonial organization: Patterns formed during colonial development of the swarming and lubricating Paenibacillus vortex bacteria. (Left) The vortices (modules) are the leading dots seen on a macro-scale (~10cm2). The picture shows part of a circular colony composed of about 1012 bacteria - ~ the number of cells of our immune system, ten times the number of neurons in the brain and hundred times the human population on earth. Each vortex is composed of many cells that swarm collectively around their 53 common center. These vortices vary in size from tens to millions of bacteria, according to their location in the colony and the growth conditions. The vortex shown on the right (magnification x500, hence each bar is a single bacterium) is a relatively newly formed one. After formation, the cells in the vortex replicate, the vortex expands in size and moves outward as a unit, leaving behind a trail of motile but usually non replicating cells ? the vortex tail. The vortices dynamics is quite complicated and includes attraction, repulsion, merging and splitting of vortices. Yet, from this complex, seemingly chaotic movement, a colony with complex but nonarbitrary organization develops (left). To maintain the integrity of the vortex while it serves as a higher-order building block of the colony requires an advanced level of communication. Messages must be passed to inform each cell in the vortex that it is now playing a more complex role, being a member of the specific vortex and the colony as a whole, so it can adjust its behavior accordingly. New vortices emerge in the trail behind a vortex following initiation signals from the parent vortex. The entire process proceeds as a continuous dialogue: a vortex grows and moves, producing a trail of bacteria and being pushed forward by the very same bacteria behind. At some point the process stalls, and this is the signal for the generation of a new vortex behind the original one, that leaves home (the trail) as a new entity which serves a living building block of the colony as a whole. Fig. A2: Collective memory and learning: Self-organization of the P.vortex bacteria in the presence of non-lethal levels of antibiotic added to the substrate. In the picture shown, bacteria were exposed to antibiotic before the colonial developments. Note that it resulted in a more organized pattern (in comparison with Fig 1. >From multi-cellularity to sociality: In fact, bacteria can go a step higher; once an entire colony becomes a new multi-cellular being with its own identity, colonies functioning as organisms cooperate as building blocks of even more complex organizations of bacterial communities or societies, such as species-rich biofilms. In this situation, cells should be able to identify their own self, both within the context of being part of a specific colony-self and part of a higher entity - a multi-colonial community to which their colony belongs. Hence, to maintain social cooperation in such societies with species diversity, the bacteria need ?multilingual? skills for the identification and contextual interpretation of messages received from colony members and from other colonies of the same species and of other species, and to have the necessary means to sustain the highest level of dialogue within the ? chattering? of the surrounding crowed. Incomprehensible complexity: For perspective, the oral cavity, for example, hosts a large assortment of unicellular prokaryotic and various eukaryotic microorganisms. Current estimates suggest that sub-gingival plaque contains 20 genera of bacteria representing 54 hundreds of different species, each with its own colony of ~1010 bacteria, i.e., together ~thousand times the human population on earth. Thus, the level of complexity of such microbial system far exceeds that of the computer networks, electric networks, transportation and all other man-made networks combined. Yet bacteria of all those colonies communicate for tropism in shared tasks, coordinated activities and exchange of relevant genetic bacterial information using biochemical communication of meaning-bearing, semantic messages. The current usage of ?language? with respect to intra- and inter-bacteria communication is mainly in the sense that one would use in, for example, ?computer language? or ? language of algebra?. Namely, it refers to structural aspects of communication, corresponding to the structural (lexical and syntactic) linguistic motifs. Higher linguistic levels - assigning contextual meaning to words and sentences (semantic) and conducting meaningful dialogue (pragmatic) - are typically associated with cognitive abilities and intelligence of human. Hence, currently one might accept their existence in the ?language of dolphins ? but regard them as well beyond the realm of bacterial communication abilities. We propose that this notion should be reconsidered. Appendix B: Clues and Percepts Drawn from Human Linguistics Two independent discoveries the 1950?s latter bridged linguistics and genetics: Chomsky?s proposed universal grammar of human languages [141] and the discovery of the structural code of the DNA. The first suggested universal structural motifs and combinatorial principles (syntactic rules) at the core of all natural languages, and the other provided analogous universals for the genetic code of all living organisms. A generation later, these paradigms continue to cross-pollinate these two fields. For example, Neo-Darwinian and population genetics perspectives as well as phylogenetic methods are now used for the understanding the structure, learning, and evolution of human languages. Similarly, Chomsky?s meaningindependent syntactic grammar view combined with computational linguistic methods are widely used in biology, especially in bioinformatics and structural biology but increasingly in biosystemics and even ecology. The focus has been on the formal, syntactic structural levels, which are also applicable to ?machine languages?: Lexical ? formation of words from their components (e.g., characters and phonemes); Syntactic ? organization of phrases and sentences in accordance with wellspecified grammatical rules [142,143]. Linguistics also deals with a higher-level framework, the semantics of human language. Semantics is connected to contextual interpretation, to the assignment of context-dependent meaning to words, sentences and paragraphs. For example, one is often able to capture the meaning of a text only after reading it several times. At each such iteration, words, sentences and paragraphs may assume different meanings in the reader's mind; iteration is necessary, since there is a hierarchical organization of contextual meaning. Namely, each word contributes to the generation of the meaning of the entire sentence it is part of, and at the same time the generated whole meaning of the sentence can change the meaning of each of the words it is composed of. By the same token, the meanings of all sentences in a paragraph are co-generated along with the created meaning of the paragraph as a whole, and so on, for all levels. 55 Readers have semantic plasticity, i.e., a reader is free to assign individualistic contextual and causal meanings to the same text, according to background knowledge, expectations, or purpose; this is accomplished using combined analytical and synthetic skills. Beyond this, some linguists identify the conduction of a dialogue among converser using shared semantic meaning as pragmatics. The group usage of a dialogue can vary from activity coordination through collective decision-making to the emergence of a new group self. To sustain such cognitive abilities might require analogous iterative processes of self-organization based generation of composons of meaning within the brain which will be discussed elsewhere Drawing upon human linguistics with regard to bacteria, semantics would imply contextual interpretation of chemical messages, i.e., each bacterium has some freedom (plasticity) to assign meaning according to its own specific, internal and external, contextual state. For that, a chemical message is required to initiate an intra-cellular response that involves internal restructuring - self-organization of the intracellular gel and/or the genenetwork or even the genome itself. To sustain a dialogue based on semantic messages, the bacteria should have a common pre-existing knowledge (collective memory) and abilities to collectively generate new knowledge that is transferable upon replication. Thus, the ability to conduct a dialogue implies that there exist some mechanisms of collective gene expression, analogous to that of cell differentiation during embryonic development of multi-cellular organisms, in which mitochondria might play an important role. Appendix C: G?del?s Code and the Axiom of Choice Hilbert?s second problem G?del?s theorems provided an answer to the second of the 23 problems posed by Hilbert. 2. Can it be proven that the axioms of logic are consistent? G?del?s theorems say that the answer to Hilbert?s second question is negative. For that he has invented the following three steps code: 1. G?del assigned a number to each logical symbol, e.g., Not ? 1 Or ? 2 If then ? 3 ? ? 4 2. He assigned prime numbers to variables, e.g., x ? 11 y ? 13 3. He assigned a number to any statement according to the following example: ? There is a number not equal to zero?. In logic symbols ( ? x ) ( x ? = 0 ) In G?del?s numbers 8 4 11 9 8 11 1 5 6 9 The statement?s number is 28.34.511.79.118.1311.171.195.236.299 56 Note that it is a product of the sequence of prime numbers, each to the power of the corresponding G?del?s number. This coding enables one-to-one mapping between statements and the whole numbers. Hilbert?s first problem and the Axiom of Choice G?del also studied the first of the 23 essential problems posed by Hilbert. 1.a Is there a transfinite number between that of a denumerable set and the numbers of the continuum? 1.b Can the continuum of numbers be considered a well ordered set? In 1940, G?del proved that a positive answer to 1.a is consistent with the axioms of von Neumann-Bernays-G?del set theory. However, in 1963, Cohen demonstrated that it is inconsistent with the Zermelo-Frankel set theory. Thus, the answer is undecidable ? it depends on the particular set theory assumed. The second question is related to an important and fundamental axiom in set sometimes called Zermelo's Axiom of Choice. It was formulated by Zermelo in 1904 and states that, given any set of mutually exclusive nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets. The axiom of choice can be demonstrated to be independent of all other axioms in set theory. So the answer to 1.b is also undecidable. The popular version of the Axiom of Choice is that [144]: Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a choice function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S. There is an ongoing controversy over how to interpret the words "choose" and "exists" in the axiom: If we follow the constructivists, and "exists" means ? to find," then the axiom is false, since we cannot find a choice function for the nonempty subsets of the real numbers. However, most mathematicians give "exists" a much weaker meaning, and they consider the Axiom to be true: To define f(S), just arbitrarily "pick any member" of S. In effect, when we accept the Axiom of Choice, this means we are agreeing to the convention that we shall permit ourselves to use a choice function f in proofs, as though it "exists" in some sense, even though we cannot give an explicit example of it or an explicit algorithm for it. The choice function merely exists in the mental universe of mathematics. Many different mathematical universes are possible. When we accept or reject the Axiom of Choice, we are specifying which universe we shall work in. As was shown by G?del and Cohen, both possibilities are feasible ? i.e., neither accepting nor rejecting AC yields a contradiction. The Axiom of Choice implies the existence of some conclusions which seem to be counterintuitive or to contradict "ordinary" experience. One example is the Banach-Tarski Decomposition, in which the Axiom of Choice is assumed to prove that it is possible to take the 3-dimensional closed unit ball, 57 B = {(x,y,z) ? R3 : x2 + y2 + z2 < 1} and partition it into finitely many pieces, and move those pieces in rigid motions (i.e., rotations and translations, with pieces permitted to move through one another) and reassemble them to form two copies of B. At first glance, the Banach-Tarski Decomposition seems to contradict some of our intuition about physics " " e.g., the Law of Mass Conservation from classical Newtonian physics. Consequently, the Decomposition is often called the Banach-Tarski Paradox. But actually, it only yields a complication, not a contradiction. If we assume a uniform density, only a set with a defined volume can have a defined mass. The notion of "volume" can be defined for many subsets of R3, and beginners might expect the notion to apply to all subsets of R3, but it does not. More precisely, Lebesgue measure is defined on some subsets of R3, but it cannot be extended to all subsets of R3 in a fashion that preserves two of its most important properties: the measure of the union of two disjoint sets is the sum of their measures, and measure is unchanged under translation and rotation. Thus, the Banach-Tarski Paradox does not violate the Law of Conservation of Mass; it merely tells us that the notion of "volume" is more complicated than we might have expected. We emphasize that the sets in the Banach-Tarski Decomposition cannot be described explicitly; we are merely able to prove their existence, like that of a choice function. One or more of the sets in the decomposition must be Lebesgue unmeasurable; thus a corollary of the Banach-Tarski Theorem is the fact that there exist sets that are not Lebesgue measurable. The idea we lean toward is that in the space of affinities the composons represent similar decomposition but of information which is the extensive functional in this space which corresponds to the volume in the system real space. Appendix D: Description of Turing?s Conceptual Machinery To support our view of the limits of Artificial Intelligence or Machines Intelligence, we present here a relatively detailed description of Turing?s Universal Machine. Turing proved that any discrete, finite state with fixed in time finite set of instructions can be mapped onto his conceptual machine. Note that there can be self-reference in the execution of the instructions but not in their logical structure. The process of computation was graphically depicted in Turing's paper when he asked the reader to consider a device that can read and write simple symbols on a paper tape that is divided into squares. The "reading/writing head" can move in either direction along the tape, one square at a time, and a control unit that directs the actions of the head can interpret simple instructions about reading and writing symbols in squares. The single square that is "scanned" or "read" at each stage is known as the Active Square. Imagine that new sections can be added at either end of the existing tape, so it is potentially infinite. Suppose the symbols are "X" and "O". Suppose that the device can erase either symbol when it reads it in the Active Square and replace it with the other symbol (i.e., erase an X and replace it with an O, and vice versa). The device also has the ability to move left or right, one square at a time, according to instructions interpreted by the control unit. The instructions cause a symbol to be erased, written, or left the same, depending on which symbol is read. 58 Any number of games can be constructed using these rules, but they would not all necessarily be meaningful. One of the first things Turing demonstrated was that some of the games constructed under these rules can be very sophisticated, considering how crude and automaton-like the primitive operations seem to be. The following example illustrates how this game can be used to perform a simple calculation. The rules of the game to be played by this Turing machine are simple: Given a starting position in the form of a section of tape with some Xs and Os on it, and a starting square indicated, the device is to perform the actions dictated by a list of instructions and follows the succeeding instructions one at a time until it reaches an instruction that forces it to stop. (If there is no explicit instruction in the table of instructions for a particular tape configuration, there is nothing that the machine can do when it reaches that configuration, so it has to stop.) Each instruction specifies a particular action to be performed if there is a certain symbol on the active square at the time it is read. There are four different actions; they are the only legal moves of this game. They are: Replace O with X. Replace X with O. Go one square to the right. Go one square to the left. An example of an instruction is: "If there is an X on the active square replace it with O." This instruction causes the machine to perform the second action listed above. In order to create a "game," we need to make a list that specifies the number of the instruction that is being followed at every step as well as the number of the instruction that is to be followed next. That is like saying "The machine is now following (for example) instruction seven, and the instruction to be followed next is (for example) instruction eight" (as is illustrated in appendix 3). Here is a series of instructions, given in coded form and the more English-like translation. Taken together, these instructions constitute an "instruction table" or a "program" that tells a Turing machine how to play a certain kind off game: 1XO2 (Instruction #1:if an X is on the active square, replace it with O, then execute instruction #2.) 2OR3 (Instruction #2: if an O is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #3.) 3XR3 (Instruction #3: if an X is on the active square, go right one square execute instruction #3; 3OR4 but if an O is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #4.) 4XR4 (Instruction #4: if an X is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #4; 4OX5 but if an O is on the active square, replace it with X and then execute instruction #5.) 5XR5 (Instruction #5: if an X is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #5; 5OX6 but if an O is on the active square, replace it with X and then execute instruction #6.) 6XL6 (Instruction #6: if an X is on the active square, go left one square and then execute instruction #6 6OL7 but if an O is on the active square, go left one square and then execute instruction #7.) 7XL8 (Instruction #7: if an X is on the active square, go left one square and then execute instruction #8.) 8XL8 (Instruction #8: if an X is on the active square, go left one square and then execute instruction #8; 8OR1 but if an O is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #1.) Note that if there is an O on the active square in instruction #1 or #7, or if there is an X on the active square in instruction #2, the machine will stop. In order to play the game (run the program) specified by the list of instructions, one more thing must be provided: a starting tape configuration. For our example, let us consider a tape with two Xs on it, bounded on both sides by an infinite string of Os. The changing states of a single tape are depicted here as a series of tape segments, one above the other. The Active 59 Square for each is denoted by a capital X or O. When the machine is started it will try to execute the first available instruction, instruction #1. The following series of actions will then occur Instruction Tape What the Machine Does #1 ...ooXxooooooo... One (of two) Xs is erased. #2 ...ooOxooooooo... #3 ...oooXooooooo... Tape is scanned to the right #3 ...oooxOoooooo... #4 ...oooxoOooooo... #5 ...oooxoXooooo... Two Xs are written. #5 ...oooxoxOoooo... #6 ...oooxoxXoooo... #6 ...oooxoXxoooo... Scanner returns to the other original X #6 ...oooxOxxoooo... #7 ...oooXoxxoooo... #8 ...ooOxoxxoooo... Scanner moves to the right and execute #1 #1 ...oooXoxxoooo... #2 ...oooOoxxoooo... #3 ...ooooOxxoooo... Scanner moves to the right of the two Xs that were written earlier. #4 ...oooooXxoooo... #4 ...oooooxXoooo... #4 ...oooooxxOooo... #5 ...oooooxxXooo... Two more Xs are written. #5 ...oooooxxxOoo... #6 ...oooooxxxXoo... #6 ...oooooxxXxoo... Scanner looks for any more original Xs #6 ...oooooxXxxoo... #6 ...oooooXxxxoo... #6 ...ooooOxxxxoo... #7 ...oooOoxxxxoo... The machine stops because there is no instruction for #7 if O is being scanned. This game may seem rather mechanical. The fact that it is mechanical was one of the points Turing was trying to make. If you look at the starting position, note that there are two adjacent Xs. Then look at the final position and note that there are four Xs. If you were to use the same instructions, but start with a tape that had five Xs, you would wind up with ten Xs. This list of instructions is the specification for a calculating procedure that can double the input and display the output. It can, in fact, be done by a machine. (This Appendix is edited with author?s permission from ?Tools for Thoughts: The People and Ideas of the Next Computer Revolution? by Howard Rheingold 1985) Appendix E: Non-Destructive Quantum Measurements Protective Quantum Measurements and Hardy?s Paradox The debate about the existence of the choice function in the Axiom of choices is in the same spirit as the debated questions about the reality of the wave function and paradoxes connected with quantum entanglement like the one proposed by Hardy (see references in the extract below). It has been proven by Aharonov and his collaborators[145-148 ]that it is possible in principle to perform quantum measurements to extract information beyond 60 quantum uncertainty while the wave function is protected (for the case of eigenstate with discrete spectrum of eigenvalue they refer to it as protective measurements, and for continuous spectrum as weak measurements). The protective, weak and non-demolition (described latter) quantum measurements provide different methods for non-destructive measurements of quantum systems ? there is no destruction of the quantum state of the system due to externally imposed measurement. These kinds of measurements enable the observations of unexpected quantum phenomena. For example, the thought experiment proposed in Hardy?s paradox can be tested as illustrated in [Quantum Physics, abstract quantph/ 0104062]. 61 As with a multiple-options state for organism, Hardy?s paradox is usually assumed to be resolved on the grounds that the thought experiment doesn't correspond to any possible real experiment and is therefore meaningless. The only way to find out what really happens to the particles in the experiment would be to measure their routes, rather than simply inferring them from the final result. But, as soon as a particle detector is placed in any of the paths, standard strong quantum measurement will cause the collapse of its wave function and wash out any possible future interference between the electron and positron states. However, Hardy?s thought experiment can be converted into a real one if the assumed strong quantum measurement is replaced with weak measurements. The idea is to exploit quantum uncertainty by using a quantum detector which is weakly coupled to the measured system to the degree that it reads eigenvalues smaller than the expected quantum uncertainty. It was proved that by doing so quantum superposition of states can be preserved (i.e., there is no collapse of the wave function). Clearly, a single weak measurement can not, on its own, provide any meaningful information. However, it was proved theoretically that, when repeated many times, the average of these measurements approximates to the true eigenvalue that would be obtained by a single strong measurement involving a collapse of the wave function [145-148].. Therefore, when weak measurements are assumed, not only does the original paradox remain, but an additional difficulty arises. The theoretical investigations imply that two pairs of electronpositron can coexist in the apparatus at the same time: A detector located in the part of the interferometer in which the particle trajectories are non-overlapping can yield a final reading of -1, i.e., a "negative presence" of a pair of particles! To quote Aharonov: The -1 result illustrates that there is a way to carry out experiments on the counter-intuitive predictions of quantum theory without destroying all the interesting results. A single quantum particle could have measurable effects on physical systems in two places at once, for instance. Moreover, when you get a good look inside, quantum theory is even more bizarre than we thought. Quantum particles can assume far more complex identities than simply being in two places at once: pairs of particles are fundamentally different from single particles and they can assume a negative presence. And the fact that weak measurements transform the paradox from a mere technicality into an unavoidable truth suggests that they could provide a springboard for new understanding of quantum mechanics. There are extraordinary things within ordinary quantum mechanics; the negative presence result might be just the tip of the iceberg: every paradox in quantum theory may simply be a manifestation of other strange behaviors of quantum objects that we have not yet detected - or even thought of. 62 The Quantum Time-Translation Machine Another unexpected quantum reality about the concept of time [149], can be viewed as being metaphorically related to the organism?s internal model of itself, which acts on different time scales for educated decision-making. We refer to the Aharonov, Anandan, Popescue and Vaidman (AAPV) Quantum Time-Translation Machine [150,151]: 63 Quantum Non-Demolition Measurements Another approach to measure the eigenvalue of a specific observable without demolition of the quantum state of the observed system is referred to as QND measurements used mainly in quantum optics [152,153]. The idea can be traced back to the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen paradox [154], presented in their 1935 paper entitled "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?? They have shown that, according to quantum mechanics, if two systems in a combined state (e.g., two half-spin particles in a combined-spin state) are at a large distance from each other, a measurement of the state of one system can provide information about that of the other one. The conceptual idea of the QND measurements is to first prepare the observed system and a quantum detector (e.g., Polarized light) in an entangled state and then to extract information about the observed system by using ordinary destructive measurement on the quantum detector. This way, the state of the detector is demolished but that of the system of interest is protected. In this sense, the newly developed biofluoremetry method for studying the intracellular spatio-temporal organization and functional correlations is actually a version of QND measurements and not just an analogy. Proceeding with the same metaphor, bacterial colonies enable to perform new real experiments in analogy with Aharonov?s ?back from the future? notion about the backward propagation of the wave function. For example, several colonies taken from the same culture in a stationary phase, or even better, from spores, can be grown at successive intervals of time while exposed to the same constraints. The new concept is to let, for example, bacteria taken from the future (the older colonies) to communicate with colonies at the present and compare their consequent development with those who were not exposed to their own future. Albeit simple, the detailed setup and interpretations of the experiments should be done keeping in mind that (as we have shown), even similar colonies grown at the same time develop distinguishable self-identities. To Be is to Change 64 The picture of the decomposable mixed state of multiple options is also metaphorically analogous to t?Hooft?s Universe [155,156], composed of underlying Be-able and Changeable non-commuting observables at the Planck length scales (10-35meter). His motivation was the paradox posed by the in principle contradiction of simulating backward in time a unified theory composed of gravity and quantum mechanics based on the current Copenhagen interpretation: There is no deeper reality, hidden variables do not exist and the world is simply probabilistic. It holds that we are not ignorant about quantum objects; it's just that there is nothing further to be known. This is in contradiction with Einstein? s picture later named ?hidden variables?. The EPR paradox mentioned earlier was an attempt to illustrate that, unless the existence of unknown and non-measurable variables is assumed, one runs into contradiction with our intuitive perception of reality. Simply phrased, according to the ?hidden variable? picture, quantum uncertainty reflects some underlying deterministic reality that in principle can be measured. Following the EPR paradox, Bell proposed a specific inequality that, if measured, can distinguish between the Copenhagen and hidden variables interpretations of quantum mechanics. The consequent experiments were in agreement with the Copenhagen interpretation. In 2002, t?Hooft presented a new approach to the problem that most perceived as being resolved. His answer to the Copenhagen interpretation is [155]: 65 To solve the paradox, he proposed a third approach based on the idea that, on the Planckian level, reality might be essentially different from that on the larger scales of interest. The idea is to define equivalence classes of states. Two states are defined as equivalent if and only if they evolve in the near future to the same state. We emphasize that this is the analogy (in reverse) to our picture of ?harnessing the past to free the future? during internal self-organization of organisms. Metaphorically, for similar reasons (in reverse) why loss of information leads to the quantum uncertainty for an external observer, the storage of past information by the organism affords it an internal state of multiple options inaccessible to an external observer. To take into consideration the crucial role of information loss, t?Hooft proposes that two kinds of observables exist on the Planckian scale. The ones that describe the equivalent classes are the be-able ones: With regard to organisms, the corresponding observables are those connected with information registered in the structural organization or statistically averaged dynamics (e.g., gene-expression measurements from several organisms under the same conditions). According to t ?Hooft all other operators are the change-able ones that do not commute with the be-able operators. So that, In this picture, reality on the very fundamental level is associated with information rather than matter: 66 This picture of nature is metaphorically similar to the picture we propose for organisms ? a balance between intrinsic and extrinsic flow of information. The essential difference is that organisms are self-organizing open system that can store information, including about their self. Appendix F: Turing?s Child Machine In the 1950?s the three interchangeable terms ?Machine Intelligence?, ? Artificial Intelligence? and ?Machine learning? referred to the causal (goal) of learning about humans by building machines to exhibit behavior which, if performed by humans, would be assumed to involve the use of intelligence. In the next five decades, ?Machine Intelligence? and its associated terms evolved away from their original causal meanings. These terms are now primarily associated with particular methodologies for attempting to achieve the goal of getting computers to automatically solve problems. Thus, the term ?artificial intelligence? is associated today primarily with the efforts to design and utilize computers to solve problems using methods that rely on knowledge, logic, and various analytical and mathematical methods. Only in some spin-off branches of research, such as genetic programming and evolvable hardware, does Turing?s term still communicate the broad goal of getting computers to automatically solve problems in a human-like or even broader biological-like manners. In his 1948 paper, Turing identified three strategies by which human-competitive machine intelligence might be achieved. The first is a logic-driven search which is the causal reason (described earlier) that led Turing to develop the idea of his conceptual machine, i.e., to learn about the foundations of mathematics and logics. The second reason for generating machine intelligence is what he called a ?cultural search? in which previously acquired knowledge is accumulated, stored in libraries, and used in problem solving a - the approach taken by modern knowledge-based expert systems. These first two approaches of Turing?s have been pursued over the past 50 years by the vast majority of researchers using the methodologies that are today primarily associated with the term ?artificial intelligence.? 67 Turing also identified a third approach to machine intelligence in his 1948 paper, saying: ?There is the genetical or evolutionary search by which a combination of genes is looked for, the criterion being the survival value.? Note that this remarkable realization preceded the discovery of the DNA and modern genetics. So Turing could not have specified in 1948 how to conduct the ?genetical or evolutionary search? for solutions to problems and could not mention concepts like population genetics and recombination. However, he did point out in his 1950 paper that: We cannot expect to find a good child-machine at the first attempt. One must experiment with teaching one such machine and see how well it learns. One can then try another and see if it is better or worse. There is an obvious connection between this process and evolution, by the identifications ?Structure of the child machine = Hereditary material?; ?Changes of the child machine = Mutations?; ?Natural selection = Judgment of the experimenter?. Thus, Turing correctly perceived in 1948 and 1950 that machine intelligence can only be achieved by an evolutionary process in which a description of a computer hardware and software (the hereditary material) undergoes progressive modification (mutation) under the guidance of natural selection (i.e., selective pressure in the form of what is now usually called ?fitness?). The measurement of fitness in modern-day genetics and evolutionary computation is usually performed by automated means, as opposed to a human passing judgment on each individual candidate, as suggested by Turing. >From this perspective, Turing?s vision is actually closer to our view about organisms? intelligence, provided that the external ?teacher? is replaced by an inner one, and the organism has freedom of response to the external information gathered, rather than forced to follow specific instructions. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 03:17:21 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:17:21 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state Message-ID: <01C4D3EC.8E29E770.shovland@mindspring.com> And what is your final solution for the useless eaters? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 5:47 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] the welfare state I am willing -- all who have worked for me are paid a living wage. Oh, wait! You mean the GOVERNMENT should guarentee these things! And where does the government get its money to do as you want? They take it away from people like me who are productive and give it to those who are not. That reduces my ability to pay employees a living wage. Living wage laws -- government imposed -- reduce the number of jobs to low income people, hurting the ones you pretend to help. This is well known. More people out of work. More people in misery. Sounds like a typical left wing bit of nonsense. We are not a family and we are not just a collection of people. We are remarkably productive and free people because our government doesn't meddle in our affairs as much as you would like. We can do better by steadily reducing the dead hand of government pressing down on the ability of free people do accomplish great things. Steve Hovland wrote: >If we don't want welfare, are we willing to >provide everyone with a job that pays a >living wage? > >Are we a national family or are we just a >bunch of people who happen to live in the >same place? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Hannes Eisler [SMTP:he at psychology.su.se] >Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:22 AM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Cc: aaer at psychology.su.se >Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state > >Living in a welfare state myself I have a few comments. >First, we have to distinguish different groups. One group consists of >people who cannot help themselves: mentally ill, retarded, >alcoholics, junkies, etc. >To be brutal: I don't want to see them running around on the street and perish. >But also as a fellowman I want to help them, not privately but by >gladly paying taxes. >Second: The welfare state's intention is to redistribute your (own) >income over your life cycle. An example: You get paid a certain >amount for every child (from your taxes) as long as children are dear >(in more than one meaning); when they are grown up and do not cost >anymore your taxes are considered a repayment. This is valid for all >citizens, though no personal humiliation. It works automatically. >Sickness is something similar; you pay only a part of the costs of >visits to physicians and medicines. However, as a healthy individual >you can earn money and pay taxes, so the government (i.e., the >taxpayers) may make a profit. >Finally there is a group whose income does not cover their living >expenses, or people who cannot handle money. Again, part of them may >have gotten into some kind of trouble, say having become a victim to >a fraud, and need some monetary help. For them there is another kind >of social welfare; they have to ask the pertinent authority in person >with all the entailing humiliation. But this is only a small part of >the Swedish welfare state. >But there is some trouble ahead. Many young people (according to >interviews) don't place work as central in their lives as their >parents and grandparents did. And many people claim to be sick when >just feeling bad (not an outright cheat) which raises the amount of >costs to unbearable high levels. >We shall see how the welfare state will develop. As yet cannot Sweden >be compared to the pre-Thatcher UK as Lynn Johnson described it. >I may add: when I was about ten years old I thought it a shame to >work for money--note: not to work in itself, but to earn money for a >living. > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From HowlBloom at aol.com Sat Nov 27 04:18:06 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:18:06 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system Message-ID: <111.3e1ca5f9.2ed959fe@aol.com> Instead of "metagenetics", can I offer an alternative term--geneteams. How do gene teams work together to learn to learn? Which brings us to some other questions whose answers I've been trying to pin down. When did the full suite of modern atoms--the 92 natural elements--become complete? Did the full panoply of modern atoms arrive after the collapse of the first meg-stars, stars that swelled, ignited, then died off very quickly? That first period of star death would have been a mere two million years after the big bang. Or did the complete suite of modern atoms have to wait six or seven billion years until several generations of smaller, longer-living stars had collapsed? More important, when did the first carbon-based MOLECULES appear in this cosmos? We know many of the details and the timeline of nucleogenesis--of the genesis of subatomic particles. But the term "moleculogenesis" doesn't yet exist. Nor does the concentrated study of this topic. At least I've been able to find nothing about it on NASA's absolutely terrific resource, its Astrophysics Data System --http://adsabs.harvard.edu/default_service.html. Another question. At what point does learning and memory first appear in the evolution of the cosmos? Is an atom of iron a summation of a big slice of the history of the cosmos? Has it survived one catastrophe after another, thus demonstrating its adaptive hardiness? In other words, is there memory, learning, and projection of future possibilities at the inanimate level? Then the big question. How long did it take after the genesis of the first simple carbon-based molecules before those molecules learned how to condense information from the past and aim toward an imperialist goal--to take over as much inanimate stuff as possible and turn it into biomass? Competition first appeared as atoms--brand new things in 380,000 abb-- discovered gravity. Greed first appeared when clumps of matter competed to become galaxies, stars, planets, and moons. But there was something new about the greed of massive teams of atoms arranged in twists that could replicate. There was something new about the hunger of the dna-and-cell based teamwork that generates the incredible variations that contribute to the spread of biomass. Paul's words suggest that restlessness and boredom have been a key part of this learning system. I've been calling this a restless cosmos, a driven cosmos, an obsessive compulsive cosmos for a very long time. But Paul is suggesting that we make computer-based learning machines restless too. That we make them try out new possibilities just for the hell of it, just to evade the pain of boredom, the pain of staying precisely the same, the pain of ennui. Paul is on the brink of suggesting that we make computational programs hunger for pop culture, for music and games that test and expand the silicon brain in new ways. Paul is suggesting that genes may be as restless and boredom-prone as Baudelaire, who painted ennui as the ultimate pain. He's suggesting that on the sly, when they're not working, genes play around and dance in leisure time. Or at least that's what Paul's ideas inspire in me. I know that leisure, entertainment, pop culture, art, and play are not useless. I've known it since I began my 20 years of fieldwork in these fields--poetry, art, magazine publishing, and finally popular music. Paul seems to be whispering to me that these cultural expressions may be a stochastic search for new possibilities. And his words suggest to me that genes play games too. They play the sort of musical games--establishment of a theme, then variation on it--that Greg's mechanisms make possible. Paul, my apologies if I've bent your words, but they're extraordinarily evocative. Can you share the Einstein-Bear connection you were pondering? Meanwhile, here comes some relevant material from Instant Evolution. Howard How does biomass invent new body-combinations, new phenotypes? That's what Gr eg and Eshel's papers make us question. Perhaps the process isn't Darwin's gradualism. Perhaps its Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge's saltation, their big jumps all at once, their punctuated equilibrium. Perhaps it's my "instant evolution". But when I wrote about instant evolution (http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm), I never looked at the underlying genetic mechanism. I simply tried to demonstrate that geneteams work much faster at invention than we think. Meanwhile, Eshel has called for a new view of evolution, one that's "orthoganal to Darwinism". He's called for an approach that doesn't follow the standard lines of argument but steps way outside the boundaries of evolutionary theory as we know it today. Greg's synthesis of work on genes looks like it fits with instant evolution and with the megateams that geneteams make when they work together en masse. Some geneteams work in megateams to learn and to create. Some get inventive and superbrainy via the complex parallel processing that hooks trillions of computational engines, trillions of genomes, together in Eshel's bacterial colonies. Some gene-and-cell-teams seem to get restless, they seem to ache for self-reinvention in Greg's multicellular organisms. That ache is held in check rigorously. Then one day things change, and that ache shows what it was trying to be in private, when it was still restrained. How many of these aches for reinvention are memories of old strategies, old body types, that worked in previous circumstances? How many body-shifts are totally new? We can see the radically new wherever we look in the fossil record. Well, not so radically new. The difference between a tyranosaurus rex and an anolis lizard skittering across a sidewalk in Florida is not that great. The difference between a crab and a fish is huge. But that difference seems to have appeared very quickly in the fossil record. It unfolded during the quick creative burst of the Cambrian era roughly 550 million years ago. (I could be wrong. There may have been an earlier split among the first primitive multicellular ancestors roughly 1.2 billion years ago.) But one way or the other, the change that tossed crustaceans down one path and proto-reptiles down another was swift,and the variations since then on the theme of crustacean and quadruped has been much smaller than we tend to think. Here's more on instant evolution from my four-year-old paper on the subject. What new meaning does the material I gathered take on in the light of what Eshel and Greg have put forth? Howard from http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm INSTANT EVOLUTION The Influence of the City on Human Genes A Speculative Case by Howard Bloom Geneticist Neil Howell, of the University of Texas? Galveston-based Medical Branch, contends that one form of human DNA?that contained in the mitochondria? sometimes makes adaptive shifts in a mere one or two generations. [11] The research with which he hopes to prove this is still in its infant stage. But Howell?s suspicion that genes can be swift gains credibility from the rate of phenotypic change among insects and fish. Here?s an illustrative passage on the subject from my upcoming book, Global Brain: the Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century (John Wiley & Sons, August 2000): If a passel of nearly identical animals is cooped up on a common turf, it frequently splinters into opposing groups which scramble determinedly down different evolutionary paths. E. O. Wilson, who brought attention to this phenomenon forty years ago, called it character displacement. [12] The battle over food and lebensraum compels each coterie to find a separate slot in the environment from which to chisel out its needs. [13] For example a small number of lookalike cichlid fish found their way to Lake Nyasa [14] in Eastern Africa roughly 12,400 years ago. It didn't take long for the finny explorers to overpopulate the place. As food became harder to find, squabbles and serious fights probably pushed the cichlids to square off in spatting cliques. The further the groups grew apart, the more different they became. [15] The details of this process are somewhat speculative, but the result is indisputable. The cichlids rapidly went from a single species of fish to hundreds, [16] each equipped with a crowbar to pry open opportunities others had missed. Some evolved mouths wide enough to swallow armored snails. Others generated thick lips to yank worms from rocks. One diabolical coven acquired teeth like spears, then skewered its rivals' eyeballs and swallowed them like cocktail onions. In the geologic blink of twelve thousand years, what had begun as a small group of carbon copies became 200 separate species--a carnival of diversity. [17] Not only did twelve thousand years suffice to change the genes which gave these fish their body shape and bio-weaponry, that micro-sliver of an eon also provided ample time to rewrite the inborn script of fish psychology. Each new cichlid species was born chromosomally equipped with the hunting or scavenging instincts essential for its new specialty. Then there?s the swarm of bird-biting London mosquitoes which moved into the tunnels of the Underground in roughly 1900 when the city?s half-built subway system was still occupied primarily by construction crews. Once below the sidewalk, the mosquitoes switched from feeding on feathered fliers to gorging on such delicacies as rats, straphangers, and maintenance workers. By the summer of 1998, the subterranean swarms had changed their genes so thoroughly that they could no longer mate with their distant relatives who lived above the pavement of the street. The pesky Tunnel bugs had taken their genome and gone off on their own, forming an entirely new species. [18] In reporting the story, Agence France Presse interviewed Roz Kidman Cox, the editor of BBC Wildlife Magazine, the publication responsible for initially breaking the news to a mass audience. Said Kidman Cox, "The scientists we talked to say the differences between the above and below ground forms are as great as if the species had been separated for thousands of years, not just a century.? [19] A mere one hundred years for a major shift in genes is not the painful crawl invoked by champions of Pleistocene fixation. Instead it is the quick-paced hop that Huxley called saltation. [20] Yet another insect can change its genome twice that fast. It?s the soapberry bug, which has renovated its chromosomes to fit new needs at a pace that?s dizzying?taking not 100 years but a mere 50. From roughly 1900 to 1980 landscapers and city planners in Florida and in Louisiana produced a bonanza for any insect enterprising enough to go after it. The landscape designers imported new breeds of ornamental trees in an effort to help their clients outdo the neighbors or to spruce up a town?s streets. Florida?s sprucer-uppers chose the Golden Raintree (Koelreuteria elegans), which packaged its seeds in a slender pod whose walls were paper-thin. Louisiana?s outdoor decorators went for Koelreuteria paniculata and Cardiospermum halicacabum, whose seeds were stashed in packets with far thicker casings. Soapberry bugs moved in to mine the new arboreal territories. Each developed genes for a proboscis appropriately sized to seize the opportunities. In Florida where the Raintree pods were easily pierced, the proboscises of soapberry bugs were short. This made for easy sipping, thus saving on resources and on energy. In Louisiana, where seeds of the new eye-pleasing trees were protected by thick rind, soapberry bugs developed a proboscis of a rather different kind?long, slender drilling cylinders which made the sipping rougher but could bore through sidewalls of a kind far tougher. Was this really a genetic alteration, or had soapberry bugs whose proboscises were already short or long simply moved long distances, each to the appropriate destination. Genetic testing showed that the specialized bugs had not come from far away, but had evolved from local insects whose proboscises had previously been adapted to harvest the bounty only of the local trees. By checking the dates at which the new greenery had ben brought in, researchers could pinpoint the time it had taken to tweak genes for proboscis length. That span turned out to be a breathlessly brief half a century. [21] So a flick of reproductive time can remake genomes in fast-breeding bugs, but what about in larger beings? In the 1970s, Thomas and Amy Schoener [22] deliberately stranded Anolis sagrei lizards from Staniel Cay on numerous smaller islands in the Bahamas, each with a different sort of foliage. Lizards on islands with stumpy plants adorned with small leaves can operate more efficiently with short hind legs. Lizards on islands whose plants are larger and more luxuriant do better if they have the long legs perches on large leaves and large plant trunks allow, since long legs also increase escape speed when running from the local lizard eaters. Washington University biologist Jonathan B. Losos predicted that over time natural selection would prune the lizards? genes to equip the scattered creatures with the limbs which best fit their needs. But how much time would genetic pruning take? Return trips to the islands revealed it hadn?t taken much time at all. The lizards on each island were soon measurably different. Some managed to diverge genetically from their parent strain in the twitch of a single decade. That?s the equivalent of ten generations?200 years?in human time. Yet according to University of Washington evolutionary ecologist John N. Thompson, even this genetic sprint is painfully slow. Says Thompson, "dozens" of genetic transmutations have been known to take place in a matter of mere decades. [23] Thompson backs up his claims with rather startling facts: ? ?Gene?for?gene coevolution in wild flax and flax rust in Australia has produced large changes in allele frequencies within and among populations over just the past decade alone ? ?The frequency of clones in Potamopyrgus antipodarum snails within a single lake in New Zealand has changed within the past decade through time?lagged selection imposed by a major trematode parasite. ? ?The introduction of myxoma virus into Australia as a biological control agent against rabbits resulted in rapid evolution toward decreased virulence within only a few years.? [24] Thompson explains that one cause of swift genetic change is the sort of race in which one species has to keep pace with its enemies and ecological partners. And lizard expert Jonathan Losos adds that, ? If colonizing populations are displaced into an environment that is often very different from that of their source, they are particularly likely to diverge evolutionarily. ? What?s more, writes Losos, the greater the difference in habitat, ?the greater the magnitude of differentiation.? In a message dated 11/25/2004 10:56:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, paul.werbos at verizon.net writes: Having spent all of about 5 minutes of real thinking about the questions Greg raises... enough thoughts pop into the mind that I doubt I have time to type them all. First -- one of the reasons why the establishment may find it difficult to fully address the questions is that they are very limited in this case in the degree of mathematical abstraction they use. It's a kind of qualitative limitation in how mathematical thinking is used... The neuroscience establishment (which I know much better) has been struggling with similar limitations... maybe a bit harder and a bit more successfully so far... ------ It is interesting to ask: now that we have learned a lot about intelligent systems in GENERAL.. and now that some of us have a reasonable first-order idea of how this maps into the brain.. what about the genetic system? Forgive me for using a new term which sounds a bit pretentious -- "metagenetics." The prefix "meta" has been badly misused lately, but in this case -- what else would be a good single word to refer to the idea of a genetic system which "learns to learn"? ^^^ Part of Greg's message is that we need to understand metagenetics in order to make any sense at all of 97 percent of the human genome. That's a big step, a good one, and an important one. That idea has existed in some form for a long time, but to give it a snazzy new one-word version and focus more attention on it is still a good step. But is there more going on here? A natural way to interpret "metagenetics"... is to think of ... a kind of second-order system which is still designed to perform the same basic functions people think about in genetic algorithms or evolutionary computing: maximizing some kind of fitness function U(w) as a function of a set of weights or parameters w. (Parameters could be anything from body characteristics to behavioral response characteristics .. to anything...) A sophisticated way to explore the space of possible .. genotypes. Back in 1999 (at a plenary talk at CEC99, the IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computing), I challenged people to send me proposals to address a more interesting computational task: to design systems which LEARN to do stochastic search to maximize U(w,X), where w is as before, and X is a set of observed variables available to enhance performance. I have reiterated this in many talks and tutorials... I call this task "Brain-Like Stochastic search." It's very important in engineering, for example; if we use evolutionary search to find the best possible chip design for some task.... it would be good to represent DIFFERENT chip design tasks by a vector X, and then use a system which learns to do better on chip design task in general. For now, it's enough of a challenge to treat X as "exogenous," but someday one could advance to dynamic X... Now: one COULD follow up on Greg's questions by asking whether we can model the genetic system as one which implements "Brain-Like Stochastic Search" with dynamic X. We may ask: to what extent does this richer functional interpretation become essential to understanding the basics of what we really see with the genome? Now -- a certain degree of "stockpiling" can be important even in that limited context. But another question occurs to me today: would it make any sense to go even further, and evaluate the possibility of a still higher level of intelligence in the genetic system? I wonder. In brains, evolutionary computing is certainly far from enough, in any form. (And I suppose I know a few key things about Edelman's work that Edelman doesn't....) In a word -- TIME. Optimizing results INTO THE FUTURE, with anticipation or foresight (both explicit and implicit), is absolutely central to how brains work. Could there be anything like THAT in the genetic system? I wonder... Various types of memory are essential in brains. There are many levels of stockpiling in brains. Could any of THAT be transferrable to the genetic case? I wonder. This morning I was thinking more about Einstein than about Greg... but I suppose such thoughts would be off-topic on this list. Oh, well. Best of luck, Paul _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kendulf at shaw.ca Sat Nov 27 04:39:02 2004 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:39:02 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? References: <15c.446c4087.2ed936b2@aol.com> Message-ID: <003501c4d43b$0594e6e0$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Howard, How I am itching to enter the debate and am not able to do so as I am reading mountains of evidence in order to appear in a Montana court on Dec. 2nd. This is total occupation as you will know if you have faced hostile cross examinations. Very best regards from a quiet admirer! Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? In a message dated 11/24/2004 9:31:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, shovland at mindspring.com writes: It could be that the accretion of microscopic changes in the genes without external implementation does in fact represent a period of testing the changes to see if they are appropriate. ' Software enhancements are done this way. We get feedback from users of the existing version, we build their perceptions into the system, we test it, and eventually we go live. the whole concept of natural selection gets very iffy if something like this is true. A genetic suite can extend the skin of a small mammal, can give the mammal wings, and can turn a tree-climbing mammal into a bat. But if that genetic suite can only test its viability to survive in the team of a genome and in the environment of a nucleus, if the gene suite remains hidden--or cryptic, to use the term applied by researchers on this topic, how can it test the viability of its product?the skin flaps connecting front limbs to hind limbs that are wings? How can that suite of genes be "certain" that it will turn out a malformation of skin that's aerodynamically sound? How can it be sure it will turn out a malformation that will serve any useful purpose, much less one that gives rodents the ability can fly an edge? How, for that matter, does a suite of genes for a body segment of an insect "learn" how to produce a head if it shows up in one place, a thorax if the gene suite shows up in another, and an abdomen if it shows up third in line? How could gene suites possibly learn to produce these things without trial and error, without testing, and without practice? Or, to put it in Stephen Jay Gould's terms, if Darwin's gradualism is right, why do we not see a plethora of "hopeful monsters"--random experiments that don't work out? Is it possible that when animals?including humans?are exposed to stress or to opportunity, gene suites that have never been tried out before suddenly appear, we have a flood of hopeful monsters, and those that are able to find or to invent a new way of making a living, a new niche, become fruitful and multiply? If so, do we have any evidence for this among multicellular creatures? We DO have evidence of this sort of body-plasticity among bacteria. When bacteria are exposed to stress they become more open to new genetic inserts from phages and from bacterial sex. In the ancient days when John Skoyles was among us, he pointed to research on heat-shock genes demonstrating that there are gene police that keep the genome rigidly in order under normal circumstances, but that loosen their grip when life gets tough and open the genome to new solutions to old problems, including solutions that turn old problems into new forms of food. But is there plasticity of this sort in the bodies of multicellular organisms? There?s some that comes from shifting the amount of time an embryo stays in the womb. Eject your infant when it?s still highly plastic and you get neoteny, you get a lot of extra wiggle room. And the brain is extremely plastic?at least in humans. But how far can bodies stretch and bend without trial and error? The two papers that relate to this issue are Eshel?s on ?Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence? and Greg?s on ?When Genes Go Walkabout?, so I?ll append them below. Onward?Howard ________ WHEN GENES GO WALKABOUT By Greg Bear I?m pleased and honored to be asked to appear before the American Philosophical Society, and especially in such august company. Honored... and more than a little nervous! I am not, after all, a scientist, but a writer of fiction--and not just of fiction, but of science fiction. That means humility is not my strong suit. Science fiction writers like to be provocative. That?s our role. What we write is far from authoritative, or final, but science fiction works best when it stimulates debate. I am an interested amateur, an English major with no degrees in science. And I am living proof that you don?t have to be a scientist to enjoy deep exploration of science. So here we go--a personal view. A revolution is under way in how we think about the biggest issues in biology--genetics and evolution. The two are closely tied, and viruses--long regarded solely as agents of disease--seem to play a major role. For decades now, I?ve been skeptical about aspects of the standard theory of evolution, the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis. But without any useful alternative--and since I?m a writer, and not a scientist, and so my credentials are suspect--I have pretty much kept out of the debate. Nevertheless, I have lots of time to read--my writing gives me both the responsibility and the freedom to do that, to research thoroughly and get my facts straight. And over ten years ago, I began to realize that many scientists were discovering key missing pieces of the evolutionary puzzle. Darwin had left open the problem of what initiated variation in species. Later scientists had closed that door and locked it. It was time to open the door again. Collecting facts from many sources--including papers and texts by the excellent scientists speaking here today--I tried to assemble the outline of a modern appendix to Darwin, using ideas derived from disciplines not available in Darwin?s time: theories of networks, software design, information transfer and knowledge, and social communication--lots of communication. My primary inspiration and model was variation in bacteria. Bacteria initiate mutations in individuals and even in populations through gene transfer, the swapping of DNA by plasmids and viruses. Another inspiration was the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, popularized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. In the fossil record--and for that matter, in everyday life--what is commonly observed are long periods of evolutionary stability, or equilibrium, punctuated by sudden change over a short span of time, at least geologically speaking--ten thousand years or less. And the changes seem to occur across populations. Gradualism--the slow and steady accumulation of defining mutations, a cornerstone of the modern synthesis--does not easily accommodate long periods of apparent stability, much less rapid change in entire populations. If punctuated equilibrium is a real phenomenon, then it means that evolutionary change can be put on hold. How is that done? How is the alleged steady flow of mutation somehow delayed, only to be released all at once? I was fascinated by the possibility that potential evolutionary change could be stored up. Where would it be kept? Is there a kind of genetic library where hypothetical change is processed, waiting for the right moment to be expressed? Does this imply not only storage, but a kind of sorting, a critical editing function within our DNA, perhaps based on some unknown genetic syntax and morphology? If so, then what triggers the change? Most often, it appears that the trigger is either environmental challenge or opportunity. Niches go away, new niches open up. Food and energy becomes scarce. New sources of food and energy become available. Lacking challenge or change, evolution tends to go to sleep--perhaps to dream, and sometimes to rumple the covers, but not to get out of bed and go for coffee. Because bacteria live through many generations in a very short period of time, their periods of apparent stability are not millennia, but years or months or even days. The most familiar mutational phenomenon in bacteria--resistance to antibiotics--can happen pretty quickly. Bacteria frequently exchange plasmids that carry genes that counteract the effects of antibiotics. Bacteria can also absorb and incorporate raw fragments of DNA and RNA, not packaged in nice little chromosomes. The members of the population not only sample the environment, but exchange formulas, much as our grandmothers might swap recipes for soup and bread and cookies. How these recipes initially evolve can in many instances be attributed to random mutation--or to the fortuitous churning of gene fragments--acting through the filter of natural selection. Bacteria do roll the dice, but recent research indicates that they roll the dice more often when they?re under stress--that is, when mutations will be advantageous. Interestingly, they also appear to roll the dice predominantly in those genetic regions where mutation will do them the most good! Bacteria, it seems, have learned how to change more efficiently. Once these bacterial capabilities evolve, they spread rapidly. However, they spread only when a need arises--again, natural selection. No advantage, no proliferation. No challenge, no change. But gene swapping is crucial. And it appears that bacteria accept these recipes not just through random action, but through a complicated process of decision-making. Bacterial populations are learning and sharing. In short, bacteria are capable of metaevolution--self-directed change in response to environmental challenges. Because of extensive gene transfer, establishing a strict evolutionary tree of bacterial types has become difficult, though likely not impossible. We?re just going to have to be clever, like detectives solving crimes in a town where everyone is a thief. Perhaps the most intriguing method of gene swapping in bacteria is the bacteriophage, or bacterial virus. Bacteriophages--phages for short--can either kill large numbers of host bacteria, reproducing rapidly, or lie dormant in the bacterial chromosome until the time is right for expression and release. Lytic phages almost invariably kill their hosts. But these latter types--known as lysogenic phages--can actually transport useful genes between hosts, and not just randomly, but in a targeted fashion. In fact, bacterial pathogens frequently rely on lysogenic phages to spread toxin genes throughout a population. Cholera populations become pathogenic in this fashion. In outbreaks of E. coli that cause illness in humans, lysogenic phages have transported genes from shigella--a related bacterial type--conferring the ability to produce shiga toxin, a potent poison. Thus, what at first glance looks like a disease--viral infection--is also an essential method of communication--FedEx for genes. When genes go walkabout, bacteria can adapt quickly to new opportunities. In the case of bacterial pathogens, they can rapidly exploit a potential marketplace of na?ve hosts. In a way, decisions are made, quorums are reached, genes are swapped, and behaviors change. What lies behind the transfer of bacterial genes? Again, environmental challenges and opportunities. While some gene exchange may be random, bacterial populations overall appear to practice functions similar to education, regimentation, and even the execution of uncooperative members. When forming bacterial colonies, many bacteria--often of different types--group together and exchange genes and chemical signals to produce an organized response to environmental change. Often this response is the creation of a biofilm, a slimy polysaccharide construct complete with structured habitats, fluid pathways, and barriers that discourage predators. Biofilms can even provide added protection against antibiotics. Bacteria that do not go along with this regimen can be forced to die--either by being compelled to commit suicide or by being subjected to other destructive measures. If you don?t get with the picture, you break down and become nutrients for those bacterial brothers who do, thus focusing and strengthening the colony. A number of bacteriologists have embraced the notion that bacteria can behave like multicellular organisms. Bacteria cooperate for mutual advantage. Today, in the dentist?s office, what used to be called plaque is now commonly referred to as a biofilm. They?re the same thing--bacterial cities built on your teeth. In 1996, I proposed to my publishers a novel about the coming changes in biology and evolutionary theory. The novel would describe an evolutionary event happening in real-time--the formation of a new sub-species of human being. What I needed, I thought, was some analog to what happens in bacteria. And so I would have to invent ancient viruses lying dormant in our genome, suddenly reactivated to ferry genes and genetic instructions between humans. To my surprise, I quickly discovered I did not have to invent anything. Human endogenous retroviruses are real, and many of them have been in our DNA for tens of millions of years. Even more interesting, some have a close relationship to the virus that causes AIDS, HIV. The acronym HERV--human endogenous retrovirus--became my mantra. In 1997 and 1998, I searched the literature (and the internet) for more articles about these ancient curiosities--and located a few pieces here and there, occasional mention in monographs, longer discussions in a few very specialized texts. I was especially appreciative of the treatment afforded to HERV in the Cold Spring Harbor text Retroviruses, edited by Drs. Coffin, Varmus, and Hughes. But to my surprise, the sources were few, and there was no information about HERV targeted to the general layman. As a fiction writer, however, I was in heaven--ancient viruses in our genes! And hardly anyone had heard of them. If I had had any sense, I would have used that for what it seemed at face value--a ticking time bomb waiting to go off and destroy us all. But I had different ideas. I asked, what do HERV do for us? Why do we allow them to stay in our genome? In fact, even in 1983, when I was preparing my novel Blood Music, I asked myself--what do viruses do for us? Why do we allow them to infect us? I suspected they were part of a scheme involving computational DNA, but could not fit them in...not just then. HIV was just coming into the public consciousness, and retroviruses were still controversial. I learned that HERV express in significant numbers in pregnant women, producing defective viral particles apparently incapable of passing to another human host. So what were they--useless hangers-on? Genetic garbage? Instinctively, I could not believe that. I?ve always been skeptical of the idea of junk DNA, and certainly skeptical of the idea that the non-coding portions of DNA are deserts of slovenly and selfish disuse. HERV seemed to be something weird, something wonderful and counter-intuitive--and they were somehow connected with HIV, a species-crossing retrovirus that had become one of the major health scourges on the planet. I couldn?t understand the lack of papers and other source material on HERV. Why weren?t they being investigated by every living biologist? In my rapidly growing novel, I wrote of Kaye Lang, a scientist who charts the possible emergence of an HERV capable of producing virions--particles that can infect other humans. To her shock, the HERV she studies is connected by investigators at the CDC with a startling new phenomenon, the apparent mutation and death of infants. The infectious HERV is named SHEVA. But SHEVA turns out to be far more than a disease. It?s a signal prompting the expression of a new phenotype, a fresh take on humanity--a signal on Darwin?s Radio. In 1999, the novel was published. To my gratified surprise, it was reviewed in Nature and other science journals. Within a very few months, news items about HERV became far more common. New scientific papers reported that ERV-related genes could help human embryos implant in the womb--something that has recently been given substantial credence. And on the web, I encountered the fascinating papers of Dr. Luis P. Villarreal. I felt as if I had spotted a big wave early, and jumped on board just in time. Still, we have not found any evidence of infectious HERV--and there is certainly no proof that retroviruses do everything I accuse them of in Darwin?s Radio. But after four years, the novel holds up fairly well. It?s not yet completely out of date. And the parallel of HERV with lysogenic phages is still startling. But back to the real world of evolution and genetics. The picture we see now in genetics is complex. Variation can occur in a number of ways. DNA sequence is not fate; far from it. The same sequence can yield many different products. Complexes of genes lie behind most discernible traits. Genes can be turned on and off at need. Non-coding DNA is becoming extremely important to understanding how genes do their work. As well, mutations are not reliable indicators of irreversible change. In many instances, mutations are self-directed responses to the environment. Changes can be reversed and then reenacted at a later time--and even passed on as reversible traits to offspring. Even such neo-Darwinian no-nos as the multiple reappearances of wings in stick insects points toward the existence of a genetic syntax, a phylogenetic toolbox, rather than random mutation. Wings are in the design scheme, the bauplan. When insects need them, they can be pulled from the toolbox and implemented once again. We certainly don?t have to throw out Mr. Darwin. Natural selection stays intact. Random variation is not entirely excised. But the neo-Darwinian dogma of random mutation as a cause of all variation, without exception, has been proven wrong. Like genetics, evolution is not just one process, but a collaboration of many processes and techniques. And evolution is not entirely blind. Nor must evolution be directed by some outside and supernatural intelligence to generate the diversity and complexity we see. Astonishing creativity, we?re discovering, can be explained by wonderfully complicated internal processes. These newer views of evolution involve learning and teamwork. Evolution is in large part about communication--comparing notes and swapping recipes, as it were. It appears that life has a creative memory, and knows when and how to use it. Let?s take a look at what the scientists have discovered thus far. Viruses can and do ferry useful genes between organisms. Viruses can also act as site-specific regulators of genetic expression. Within a cell, transposable elements--jumping genes similar in some respects to endogenous retroviruses--can also be targeted to specific sites and can regulate specific genes. Both viruses and transposable elements can be activated by stress-related chemistry, either in their capacity as selfish pathogens--a stressed organism may be a weakened organism--or as beneficial regulators of gene expression--a stressed organism may need to change its nature and behavior. Viral transmission occurs not just laterally, from host to host (often during sex), but vertically through inherited mobile elements and endogenous retroviruses. Chemical signals between organisms can also change genetic expression. As well, changes in the environment can lead to modification of genetic expression in both the individual and in later generations of offspring. These changes may be epigenetic--factors governing which genes are to be expressed in an organism can be passed on from parent to offspring--but also genetic, in the sequence and character of genes. Our immune system functions as a kind of personal radar, sampling the environment and providing information that allows us to adjust our immune response--and possibly other functions, as well. These pathways and methods of regulation and control point toward a massive natural network capable of exchanging information--not just genes themselves, but how genes should be expressed, and when. Each gene becomes a node in a genomic network that solves problems on the cellular level. Cells talk to each other through chemistry and gene transfer. And through sexual recombination, pheromonal interaction, and viruses, multicellular organisms communicate with each other and thus become nodes in a species-wide network. On the next level, through predation and parasitism, as well as through cross-species exchange of genes, an ecosystem becomes a network in its own right, an interlinking of species both cooperating and competing, often at the same time. Neural networks from beehives to brains solve problems through the exchange and the selective cancellation and modification of signals. Species and organisms in ecosystems live and die like signals in a network. Death--the ax of natural selection--is itself a signal, a stop-code, if you will. Networks of signals exist in all of nature, from top to bottom--from gene exchange to the kinds of written and verbal communication we see at this event. Changes in genes can affect behavior. Sometimes even speeches can affect behavior. Evolution is all about competition and cooperation--and communication. Traditional theories of evolution emphasize the competitive aspect and de-emphasize or ignore the cooperative aspect. But developments in genetics and molecular biology render this emphasis implausible. Genes go walkabout far too often. We are just beginning to understand the marvelous processes by which organisms vary and produce the diversity of living nature. For now, evolution is a wonderful mystery, ripe for further scientific exploration. The gates have been blown open once again. And as a science fiction writer, I?d like to make two provocative and possibly ridiculous predictions. The first is that the more viruses may be found in an organism and its genome, the more rapid will be that organism?s rate of mutation and evolution. And the second: Bacteria are such wonderful, slimmed-down organisms, lacking introns and all the persiflage of eukaryotic biology. It seems to me that rather than bacteria being primitive, and that nucleated cells evolved from them, the reverse could be true. Bacteria may once have occupied large, primitive eukaryotic cells, perhaps similar to those seen in the fossil Vendobionts--or the xenophyophores seen on ocean bottoms today. There, they evolved and swam within the relative safety of the membranous sacs, providing various services, including respiration. They may have eventually left these sacs and become both wandering minstrels and predators, serving and/or attacking other sacs in the primitive seas. Eventually, as these early eukaryotic cells advanced, and perhaps as the result of a particularly vicious cycle of bacterial predation, they shed nearly all their bacterial hangers-on in a protracted phase of mutual separation, lasting hundreds of millions or even billions of years. And what the now trim and super-efficient bacteria--the sports cars of modern biology--left behind were the most slavish and servile members of that former internal community: the mitochondria. Which group will prove to have made the best decision, to have taken the longest and most lasting road? ________ 1 Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence Vs. Information-Based Artificial Intelligence By Eshel Ben Jacob and Yoash Shapira School of Physics and Astronomy Raymond & Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv Israel Abstract In this chapter, we reflect on the concept of Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence - a fundamental trait of Life shared by all organisms, from bacteria to humans, associated with: semantic and pragmatic communication, assignment and generation of meaning, formation of self-identity and of associated identity (i.e., of the group the individual belongs to), identification of natural intelligence, intentional behavior, decision-making and intentionally designed self-alterations. These features place the Meaning-Based natural Intelligence beyond the realm of Information-based Artificial Intelligence. Hence, organisms are beyond man-made pre-designed machinery and are distinguishable from non-living systems. Our chain of reasoning begins with the simple distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic contextual causations for acquiring intelligence. The first, associated with natural intelligence, is required for the survival of the organism (the biotic system) that generates it. In contrast, artificial intelligence is implemented externally to fulfill a purpose for the benefit of the organism that engineered the ?Intelligent Machinery?. We explicitly propose that the ability to assign contextual meaning to externally gathered information is an essential requirement for survival, as it gives the organism the freedom of contextual decision-making. By contextual, we mean relating to the external and internal states of the organism and the internally stored ontogenetic knowledge it has generated. We present the view that contextual interpretation of information and consequent decision-making are two fundamentals of natural intelligence that any living creature must have. 2 A distinction between extraction of information from data vs. extraction of meaning from information is drawn while trying to avoid the traps and pitfalls of the ?meaning of meaning? and the ?emergence of meaning? paradoxes. The assignment of meaning (internal interpretation) is associated with identifying correlations in the information according to the internal state of the organism, its external conditions and its purpose in gathering the information. Viewed this way, the assignment of meaning implies the existence of intrinsic meaning, against which the external information can be evaluated for extraction of meaning. This leads to the recognition that the organism has self-identity. We present the view that the essential differences between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence are a testable reality, untested and ignored since it had been wrongly perceived as inconsistent with the foundations of physics. We propose that the inconsistency arises within the current, gene-network picture of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm (that regards organisms as equivalent to a Turing machine) and not from in principle contradiction with physical reality. Once the ontological reality of organisms? natural intelligence is verified, a paradigm shift should be considered, where inter- and intra-cellular communication and genome plasticity (based on junk DNA? and the abundance of transposable elements) play crucial roles. In this new paradigm, communication and gene plasticity might be able to sustain the organisms with regulated freedom of choice between different available responses. There have been many attempts to attribute the cognitive abilities of organisms (e.g., consciousness) to underlying quantum-mechanical mechanisms, which can directly affect the ?mechanical? parts of the organism (i.e., atomic and molecular excitations) despite thermal noise. Here, organisms are viewed as continuously self-organizing open systems that store past information, external and internal. These features enable the macroscopic organisms to have features analogous to some features in quantum mechanical systems. Yet, they are essentially different and should not be mistaken to be a direct reflection of quantum effects. On the conceptual level, the analogy is very useful as it can lead to some insights from the knowledge of quantum mechanics. We show, for example, how it enables to metaphorically bridge between the Aharonov-Vaidman and Aharonov-Albert-Vaidman concepts of Protective and Weak Measurements in quantum mechanics (no destruction of the quantum state) with Ben Jacob?s concept of Weak-Stress Measurements, (e.g., exposure to non-lethal levels of antibiotic) in the study of organisms. We also reflect on the metaphoric analogy 3 between Aharonov-Anandan-Popescue-Vaidman Quantum Time-Translation Machine and the ability of an external observer to deduce on an organism?s decision-making vs. arbitrary fluctuations. Inspired by the concept of Quantum Non-Demolition measurements we propose to use biofluoremetry (the use of bio-compatible fluorescent molecules to study intracellular spatio-temporal organization and functional correlations) as a future methodology of Intracellular Non-Demolition Measurements. We propose that the latter, performed during Weak-Stress Measurements of the organism, can provide proper schemata to test the special features associated with natural intelligence. Prologue - From Bacteria Thou Art Back in 1943, a decade before the discovery of the structure of the DNA, Schr?dinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, delivered a series of public lectures, later collected in a book entitled ?What is Life? The Physical Aspects of Living Cells? [1]. The book begins with an ?apology? and explanation why he, as a physicist, took the liberty to embark on a quest related to Life sciences. A scientist is supposed to have a complete and thorough I of knowledge, at first hand, of some subjects and, therefore, is usually expected not to write on any topic of which he is not a life master. This is regarded as a matter of noblesse oblige. For the present purpose I beg to renounce the noblesse, if any, and to be the freed of the ensuing obligation. ?some of us should venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second-hand and incomplete knowledge of some of them -and at the risk of making fools of ourselves, so much for my apology. Schr?dinger proceeds to discuss the most fundamental issue of Mind from Matter [1-3]. He avoids the trap associated with a formal definition of Life and poses instead more pragmatic questions about the special features one would associate with living organisms - to what extent these features are or can be shared by non-living systems. What is the characteristic feature of life? When is a piece of matter said to be alive? When it goes on 'doing something', moving, exchanging material with its environment, and so forth, and that for a much longer period than we would expect of an inanimate piece of matter to 'keep going' under similar circumstances. 4 ?Let me use the word 'pattern' of an organism in the sense in which the biologist calls it 'the four-dimensional pattern', meaning not only the structure and functioning of that organism in the adult, or in any other particular stage, but the whole of its ontogenetic development from the fertilized egg the cell to the stage of maturity, when the organism begins to reproduce itself. To explain how the organism can keep alive and not decay to equilibrium, Schr?dinger argues from the point of view of statistical physics. It should be kept in mind that the principles of non-equilibrium statistical physics [4-6] with respect to organisms, and particularly to self-organization in open systems [7-12], were to be developed only a decade later, following Turing?s papers, ?The chemical basis of morphogenesis?, ?The morphogen theory of phyllotaxis? and ?Outline of the development of the daisy? [13-15]. The idea Schr?dinger proposed was that, to maintain life, it was not sufficient for organisms just to feed on energy, like man-made thermodynamic machines do. To keep the internal metabolism going, organisms must absorb low-entropy energy and exude high-entropy waste products. How would we express in terms of the statistical theory the marvelous faculty of a living organism, by which it delays the decay into thermodynamic equilibrium (death)? We said before: 'It feeds upon negative entropy', attracting, as it was a stream of negative entropy upon itself, to compensate the entropy increase it produces by living and thus to maintain itself on a stationary and fairly low entropy level. Indeed, in the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed upon well enough, viz. the extremely well-ordered state of matter in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it. The idea can be continued down the line to bacteria - the most fundamental independent form of life on Earth [16-18]. They are the organisms that know how to reverse the second law of thermodynamics in converting high-entropy inorganic substance into low-entropy living matter. They do this cooperatively, so they can make use of any available source of lowentropy energy, from electromagnetic fields to chemical imbalances, and release highentropy energy to the environment, thus acting as the only Maxwell Demons of nature. The existence of all other creatures depends on these bacterial abilities, since no other organism on earth can do it on its own. Today we understand that bacteria utilize cooperatively the principles of self-organization in open systems [19-36]. Yet bacteria must thrive on 5 imbalances in the environment; in an ideal thermodynamic bath with no local and global spatio-temporal structure, they can only survive a limited time. In 1943, the year Schr?dinger delivered his lectures, Luria and Delbruck performed a cornerstone experiment to prove that random mutation exists [37]: non-resistant bacteria were exposed to a lethal level of bacteriophage, and the idea was that only those that happened to go through random mutation would survive and be observed. Their experiments were then taken as a crucial support for the claim of the Neo-Darwinian dogma that all mutations are random and can occur during DNA replication only [38-41]. Schr?dinger proposed that random mutations and evolution can in principle be accounted for by the laws of physics and chemistry (at his time), especially those of quantum mechanics and chemical bonding. He was troubled by other features of Life, those associated with the organisms? ontogenetic development during life. The following are additional extracts from his original lectures about this issue: Today, thanks to the ingenious work of biologists, mainly of geneticists, during the last thirty or forty years, enough is known about the actual material structure of organisms and about their functioning to state that, and to tell precisely why present-day physics and chemistry could not possibly account for what happens in space and time within a living organism. ?I tried to explain that the molecular picture of the gene made it at least conceivable that the miniature code should be in one-to-one correspondence with a highly complicated and specified plan of development and should somehow contain the means of putting it into operation. Very well then, but how does it do this? How are we going to turn ?conceivability? into true understanding? ?No detailed information about the functioning of the genetic mechanism can emerge from a description of its structure as general as has been given above. That is obvious. But, strangely enough, there is just one general conclusion to be obtained from it, and that, I confess, was my only motive for writing this book. From Delbruck's general picture of the hereditary substance it emerges that living matter, while not eluding the 'laws of physics' as established up to date, is likely to involve 'other laws of physics' hitherto unknown, which, however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of this science as the former. This is a rather subtle line of thought, open to misconception in more than one respect. All the remaining pages are concerned with making it clear. With the discovery of the structure of DNA, the evidence for the one-gene-one-protein scheme and the discoveries of the messenger RNA and transfer RNA led to the establishment of the gene-centered paradigm in which the basic elements of life are the genes. According to this paradigm, Schr?dinger?s old dilemma is due to lack of knowledge at the time, so the new 6 findings render it obsolete. The dominant view since has been that all aspects of life can be explained solely based on the information stored in the structure of the genetic material. In other words, the dominant paradigm was largely assumed to be a self-consistent and a complete theory of living organisms [38-41], although some criticism has been raised over the years [42-47], mainly with emphasis on the role of bacteria in symbiogenesis of species. The latter was proposed in (1926) by Mereschkovsky in a book entitled "Symbiogenesis and the Origin of Species" and by Wallin in a book entitled "Symbionticism and the Origins of Species". To quote Margulis and Sagan [44]: The pioneering biologist Konstantin S. Merezhkovsky first argued in 1909 that the little green dots (chloroplasts) in plant cells, which synthesize sugars in the presence of sunlight, evolved from symbionts of foreign origin. He proposed that ?symbiogenesis?? a term he coined for the merger of different kinds of life-forms into new species?was a major creative force in the production of new kinds of organisms. A Russian anatomist, Andrey S. Famintsyn, and an American biologist, Ivan E. Wallin, worked independently during the early decades of the twentieth century on similar hypotheses. Wallin further developed his unconventional view that all kinds of symbioses played a crucial role in evolution, and Famintsyn, believing that chloroplasts were symbionts, succeeded in maintaining them outside the cell. Both men experimented with the physiology of chloroplasts and bacteria and found striking similarities in their structure and function. Chloroplasts, they proposed, originally entered cells as live food? microbes that fought to survive?and were then exploited by their ingestors. They remained within the larger cells down through the ages, protected and always ready to reproduce. Famintsyn died in 1918; Wallin and Merezhkovsky were ostracized by their fellow biologists, and their work was forgotten. Recent studies have demonstrated, however, that the cell?s most important organelles?chloroplasts in plants and mitochondria in plants and animals?are highly integrated and well-organized former bacteria. The main thesis is that microbes, live beings too small to be seen without the aid of microscopes, provide the mysterious creative force in the origin of species. The machinations of bacteria and other microbes underlie the whole story of Darwinian evolution. Free-living microbes tend to merge with larger forms of life, sometimes seasonally and occasionally, sometimes permanently and unalterably. Inheritance of ?acquired bacteria? may ensue under conditions of stress. Many have noted that the complexity and responsiveness of life, including the appearance of new species from differing ancestors, can be comprehended only in the light of evolution. But the evolutionary saga itself is legitimately vulnerable to criticism from within and beyond science. Acquisition and accumulation of random mutations simply are, of course, important processes, but they do not suffice. Random mutation alone does not account for evolutionary novelty. Evolution of life is incomprehensible if microbes are omitted from the story. Charles Darwin (1809-1882), in the absence of evidence, invented ?pangenes? as the source of new inherited variation. If he and the first evolutionist, the 7 Frenchman Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, only knew about the sub visible world what we know today, they would have chuckled, and agreed with each other and with us. The Neo-Darwinian paradigm began to draw some additional serious questioning following the human genome project that revealed less than expected genes and more than expected transposable elements. The following is a quote from the Celera team [18]. Taken together the new findings show the human genome to be far more than a mere sequence of biological code written on a twisted strand of DNA. It is a dynamic and vibrant ecosystem of its own, reminiscent of the thriving world of tiny Whos that Dr. Seuss' elephant, Horton, discovered on a speck of dust . . . One of the bigger surprises to come out of the new analysis, some of the "junk" DNA scattered throughout the genome that scientists had written off as genetic detritus apparently plays an important role after all. Even stronger clues can be deduced when social features of bacteria are considered: Eons before we came into existence, bacteria already invented most of the features that we immediately think of when asked to distinguish life from artificial systems: extracting information from data, assigning existential meaning to information from the environment, internal storage and generation of information and knowledge, and inherent plasticity and self-alteration capabilities [9]. Let?s keep in mind that about 10% of our genes in the nucleus came, almost unchanged, from bacteria. In addition, each of our cells (like the cells of any eukaryotes and plans) carries its own internal colony of mitochondria - the intracellular multiple organelles that carry their own genetic code (assumed to have originated from symbiotic bacteria), inherited only through the maternal line. One of the known and well studied functions of mitochondria is to produce energy via respiration (oxidative phosphorylation), where oxygen is used to turn extracellular food into internally usable energy in the form of ATP. The present fluorescence methods allow video recording of the mitochondria dynamical behavior within living cells reveal that they play additional crucial roles for example in the generation of intracellular calcium waves in glia cells[48-50]. Looking at the spatio-temporal behavior of mitochondria, it appears very much like that of bacterial colonies. It looks as if they all move around in a coordinated manner replicate and even conjugate like bacteria in a colony. From Schr?dinger?s perspective, it seems that not 8 only do they provide the rest of the cell with internal digestible energy and negative entropy but they also make available relevant information embedded in the spatio-temporal correlations of localized energy transfer. In other words, each of our cells carries hundreds to thousands of former bacteria as colonial Maxwell Demons with their own genetic codes, selfidentity, associated identity with the mitochondria in other cells (even if belong to different tissues), and their own collective self-interest (e.g., to initiate programmed death of their host cell). Could it be, then, that the fundamental, causality-driven schemata of our natural intelligence have also been invented by bacteria [9,47], and that our natural intelligence is an ?evolutionimproved version?, which is still based on the same fundamental principles and shares the same fundamental features? If so, perhaps we should also learn something from bacteria about the fundamental distinction between our own Natural Intelligence and the Artificial Intelligence of our created machinery. Introduction One of the big ironies of scientific development in the 20th century is that its burst of creativity helped establish the hegemony of a paradigm that regards creativity as an illusion. The independent discovery of the structure of DNA (Universal Genetic Code), the introduction of Chomsky?s notion about human languages (Universal Grammar ? Appendix B) and the launching of electronic computers (Turing Universal Machines- Appendix C), all occurring during the 1950?s, later merged and together established the dominance of reductionism. Western philosophy, our view of the world and our scientific thought were under its influence ever since, to the extent that many hold the deep conviction that the Universe is a Laplacian, mechanical universe in which there is no room for renewal or creativity [47]. In this Universe, concepts like cognition, intelligence or creativity are seen as mere illusion. The amazing process of evolution (from inanimate matter, through organisms of increasing complexity, to the emergence of intelligence) is claimed to be no more than a successful accumulation of errors (random mutations) enhanced by natural selection (the Darwinian picture). Largely due to the undeniable creative achievements of science, unhindered by the still unsolved fundamental questions, the hegemony of reductionism 9 reached the point where we view ourselves as equivalent to a Universal Turing machine. Now, by the logical reasoning inherent in reductionism, we are not and can not be essentially different ?beings? from the machinery we can create like complex adaptive systems [51]. The fundamental assumption is of top-level emergence: a system consists of a large number of autonomous entities called agents, that individually have very simple behavior and that interact with each other in simple ways. Despite this simplicity, a system composed of large numbers of such agents often exhibits what is called emergent behavior that is surprisingly complex and hard to predict. Moreover, in principle, we can design and build machinery that can even be made superior to human cognitive abilities [52]. If so, we represent living examples of machines capable of creating machines (a conceptual hybrid of ourselves and our machines) ?better? then themselves, which is in contradiction with the paradigmatic idea of natural evolution: that all organisms evolved according to a ?Game of Random Selection? played between a master random-number generator (Nature) and a collection of independent, random number generators (genomes). The ontological reality of Life is perceived as a game with two simple rules ? the second law of thermodynamics and natural selection. Inherent meaning and causality-driven creativity have no existence in such a reality ? the only meaning of life is to survive. If true, how come organisms have inherent programming to stop living? So here is the irony: that the burst of real creativity was used to remove creativity from the accepted epistemological description of Nature, including life. The most intriguing challenge associated with natural intelligence is to resolve the difficulty of the apparent contradiction between its fundamental concepts of decision-making and creativity and the fundamental principle of time causality in physics. Ignoring the trivial notion, that the above concepts have no ontological reality, intelligence is assumed to reflect Top-Level-Emergence in complex systems. This commonly accepted picture represents the ?More is Different? view [53], of the currently hegemonic reductionism-based constructivism paradigm. Within this paradigm, there are no primary differences between machinery and living systems, so the former can, in principle, be made as intelligent as the latter and even more. Here we argue that constructivism is insufficient to explain natural intelligence, and all-level generativism, or a ?More is Different on All Levels? principle, is necessary for resolving the emergence of the meaning paradox [9]. The idea is the cogeneration of meaning on all hierarchical levels, which involves self-organization and contextual alteration of the constituents of the biotic system on all levels (down to the 10 genome) vs. top-level emergence in complex systems with pre-designed and pre-prepared elements [51,52]. We began in the prologue with the most fundamental organisms, bacteria, building the argument towards the conclusion that recent observations of bacterial collective self-identity place even them, and not only humans, beyond a Turing machine: Everyone agrees that even the most advanced computers today are unable to fully simulate even an individual, most simple bacterium of some 150 genes, let alone more advanced bacteria having several thousands of genes, or a colony of about 1010 such bacteria. Within the current Constructivism paradigm, the above state of affairs reflects technical or practical rather than fundamental limitations. Namely, the assumption is that any organelle, our brain included, as well as any whole organism, is in principle equivalent to, and thus may in principle be mapped onto a universal Turing Machine ? the basis of all man-made digital information processing machines (Appendix C). We argue otherwise. Before doing so we will place Turing?s notions about ?Intelligent Machinery? [54] and ?Imitation Game? [55] within a new perspective [56], in which any organism, including bacteria, is in principle beyond machinery [9,47]. This realization will, in turn, enable us to better understand ourselves and the organisms our existence depends on ? the bacteria. To make the argument sound, we take a detour and reflect on the philosophical question that motivated Turing to develop his conceptual computing machine: We present Turing?s universal machine within the causal context of its invention [57], as a manifestation of G?del?s theorem [58-60], by itself developed to test Hilbert?s idea about formal axiomatic systems [61]. Then we continued to reexamine Turing?s seminal papers that started the field of Artificial Intelligence, and argue that his ?Imitation Game?, perceived ever since as an ?Intelligence Test?, is actually a ?Self-Non-Self Identity Test?, or ?Identity Game? played between two humans competing with a machine by rules set from machines perspective, and a machine built by another human to win the game by presenting a false identity. We take the stand that Artificial and Natural Intelligence are distinguishable, but not by Turing?s imitation game which is set from machines perspective - the rules of the game simply do not allow expression of the special features of natural intelligence. Hence, for distinction between the two versions of Intelligence, the rules of the game must be modified 11 in various ways. Two specific examples are presented, and it is propose that it?s unlikely for machines to win these new versions of the game. Consequently, we reflect on the following questions about natural intelligence: 1. Is it a metaphor or overlooked reality? 2. How can its ontological reality be tested? 3. Is it consistent with the current gene-networks picture of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm? 4. Is it consistent with physical causal determinism and time causality? To answer the questions, we first present the current accepted picture of organisms as ?watery Turing machines? living in a predetermined Laplacian Universe. We then continue to describe the ?creative genome? picture and a new perspective of the organism as a system with special built-in means to sustain ?learning from experience? for decision-making [47]. For that, we reflect on the analogy between the notions of the state of multiple options in organisms, the choice function in the Axiom of Choice in mathematics (Appendix D) and the superposition of states in quantum mechanics (Appendix E). According to the analogy, destructive quantum measurements (that involve collapse of the wave function) are equivalent to strong-stress measurements of the organisms (e.g., lethal levels of antibiotics) and to intracellular destructive measurements (e.g., gene-sequencing and gene-expression in which the organism is disassembled). Inspired by the new approach of protective quantum measurements, which do not involve collapse of the wave function (Appendix E), we propose new conceptual experimental methodologies of biotic protective measurements - for example, by exposing the organisms to weak stress, like non-lethal levels of antibiotic [62,63], and by using fluoremetry to record the intracellular organization and dynamics keeping the organism intact [64-66]. Formation of self-identity and of associated identity (i.e., of the group the individual belongs to), identification of natural intelligence in other organisms, intentional behavior, decisionmaking [67-75] and intentionally designed self-alterations require semantic and pragmatic communication [76-80], are typically associated with cognitive abilities and meaning-based natural intelligence of human. One might accept their existence in the ?language of dolphins? but regard them as well beyond the realm of bacterial communication abilities. We propose that this notion should be reconsidered: New discoveries about bacterial intra- and intercellular communication [81-92], colonial semantic and pragmatic language [9,47,93,94], the above mentioned picture of the genome [45-47], and the new experimental methodologies led us to consider bacterial natural intelligence as a testable reality. 12 Can Organisms be Beyond Watery Turing Machines in Laplace?s Universe? The objection to the idea about organisms? regulated freedom of choice can be traced to the Laplacian description of Nature. In this picture, the Universe is a deterministic and predictable machine composed of matter parts whose functions obey a finite set of rules with specified locality [95-98]. Laplace has also implicitly assumed that determinism, predictability and locality go hand in hand with computability (using current terminology), and suggested that: ?An intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprises it. If this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain: and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.? Note that this conceptual intellect (Lacplace?s demon) is assumed to be an external observer, capable, in principle, of performing measurements without altering the state of the system, and, like Nature itself, equivalent to a universal Turing machine. In the subsequent two centuries, every explicit and implicit assumption in the Laplacean paradigm has proven to be wrong in principle (although sometimes a good approximation on some scales). For example, quantum mechanics ruled out locality and the implicit assumption about simultaneous and non-destructive measurements. Studies in computer sciences illustrate that a finite deterministic system (with sufficient algorithmic complexity) can be beyond Turing machine computability (the size of the required machine should be comparable with that of the whole universe or the computation time of a smaller machine would be comparable with the time of the universe). Computer sciences, quantum measurements theory and statistical physics rule out backward computability even if the present state is accurately known. 13 Consequently, systems? unpredictability to an external observer is commonly accepted. Yet, it is still largely assumed that nature itself as a whole and any of its parts must in principle be predetermined, that is, subject to causal determinism [98],which must go hand in hand with time causality [96]: Causal determinism is the thesis that all events are causally necessitated by prior events, so that the future is not open to more than one possibility. It seems to be equivalent to the thesis that the future is in principle completely predictable (even if in practice it might never actually be possible to predict with complete accuracy). Another way of stating this is that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen, meaning that a completely accurate prediction of any future event could in principle be given, as in the famous example of Laplace?s demon. Clearly, a decomposable state of mixed multiple options and hence decision-making can not have ontological reality in a universe subject to ?causal determinism?. Moreover, in this Neo-Laplacian Universe, the only paradigm that does not contradict the foundations of logic is the Neo-Darwinian one. It is also clear that in such clockwork universe there can not be an essential difference, for example, between self-organization of a bacterial colony and self-organization of a non living system such as electro-chemical deposition [99,100]. Thus, all living organisms, from bacteria to humans, could be nothing but watery Turing machines created and evolved by random number generators. The conviction is so strong that it is pre-assumed that any claim regarding essential differences between living organisms and non living systems is an objection to the foundations of logic, mathematics, physics and biology. The simple idea, that the current paradigm in life sciences might be the source of the apparent inconsistency and hence should be reexamined in light of the new discoveries, is mostly rejected point-blank. In the next sections we present a logical argument to explain why the Neo-Laplacian Universe (with a built-in Neo-Darwinian paradigm) can not provide a complete and selfconsistent description of Nature even if random number generators are called for the rescue. The chain of reasoning is linked with the fact that formal axiomatic systems cannot provide complete bases for mathematics and the fact that a Universal Turing Machine cannot answer all the questions about its own performance. Hilbert?s Vision ? 14 Meaning-Free Formal Axiomatic Systems Computers were invented to clarify G?del?s theorem, which by itself has been triggered by the philosophical question about the foundation of mathematics raised by Russell?s logical paradoxes [61]. These paradoxes attracted much attention, as they appeared to shatter the solid foundations of mathematics, the most elegant creation of human intelligence. The best known paradox has to do with the logical difficulty to include the intuitive concept of selfreference within the foundations of Principia Mathematica: If one attempts to define the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves, a paradox arises - that if the set is to be an element of itself, it shouldn?t, and vice versa. As an attempt to eliminate such paradoxes from the foundations of mathematics, Hilbert invented his meta-mathematics. The idea was to lay aside the causal development of mathematics as a meaningful ?tool? for our survival, and set up a formal axiomatic system so that a meaning-independent mathematics can be built starting from a set of basic postulates (axioms) and well-defined rules of deduction for formulating new definitions and theorems clean of paradoxes. Such a formal axiomatic system would then be a perfect artificial language for reasoning, deduction, computing and the description of nature. Hilbert?s vision was that, with the creation of a formal axiomatic system, the causal meaning that led to its creation could be ignored and the formal system treated as a perfect, meaning-free game played with meaning-free symbols on paper. His idea seemed very elegant - with ?superior? rules, ?uncontaminated? by meaning, at our disposal, any proof would not depend any more on the limitation of human natural language with its imprecision, and could be executed, in principle, by some advanced, meaning-free, idealized machine. It didn?t occur to him that the built-in imprecision of human linguistics (associated with its semantic and pragmatic levels) are not a limitation but rather provide the basis for the flexibility required for the existence of our creativity-based natural intelligence. He overlooked the fact that the intuitive (semantic) meanings of intelligence and creativity have to go hand in hand with the freedom to err ? there is no room for creativity in a precise, clockwork universe. G?del?s Incompleteness/Undecidability Theorem 15 In 1931, in a monograph entitled ?On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems? [58-61], G?del proved that Hilbert?s vision was in principle wrong - an ideal ?Principia Mathematica? that is both self-consistent and complete can not exist. Two related theorems are formulated and proved in G?del?s paper: 1. The Undecidability Theorem - within formal axiomatic systems there exist questions that are neither provable nor disprovable solely on the basis of the axioms that define the system. 2. The Incompleteness Theorem - if all questions are decidable then there must exist contradictory statements. Namely, a formal axiomatic system can not be both self-consistent and complete. What G?del showed was that a formal axiomatic system is either incomplete or inconsistent even if just the elementary arithmetic of the whole numbers 0,1,2,3, is considered (not to mention all of mathematics). He bridged between the notion of selfreferential statements like ?This statement is false? and Number Theory. Clearly, mathematical statements in Number Theory are about the properties of whole numbers, which by themselves are not statements, nor are their properties. However, a statement of Number Theory could be about a statement of Number Theory and even about itself (i.e., self-reference). To show this, he constructed one-to-one mapping between statements about numbers and the numbers themselves. In Appendix D, we illustrate the spirit of G?del?s code. G?del?s coding allows regarding statements of Number Theory on two different levels: (1) as statements of Number Theory, and (2) as statements about statements of Number Theory. Using his code, G?del transformed the Epimenides paradox (?This statement is false?) into a Number Theory version: ?This statement of Number Theory is improvable?. Once such a statement of Number Theory that describes itself is constructed, it proves G?del?s theorems. If the statement is provable then it is false, thus the system is inconsistent. Alternatively, if the statement is improvable, it is true but then the system is incomplete. One immediate implication of G?del?s theorem is that no man-made formal axiomatic system, no matter how complex, is sufficient in principle to capture the complexity of the simplest of all systems of natural entities ? the natural whole numbers. In simple words, any 16 mathematical system we construct can not be prefect (self-consistent and complete) on its own ? some of its statements rely on external human intervention to be settled. It is thus implied that either Nature is not limited by causal determinism (which can be mapped onto a formal axiomatic system), or it is limited by causal determinism and there are statement about nature that only an external Intelligence can resolve. The implications of G?del?s theorem regarding human cognition are still under debate [108]. According to the Lucas-Penrose view presented in ?Minds, Machines and G?del? by Lucas [101] and in ?The emperor?s new mind: concerning computers, minds and the law of physics? by Penrose [73], G?del?s theorems imply that some of the brain functions must act non-algorithmically. The popular version of the argumentation is: There exist statements in arithmetic which are undecidable for any algorithm yet are intuitively decidable for mathematicians. The objection is mainly to the notion of ?intuition-based mathematical decidability?. For example, Nelson in ?Mathematics and the Mind? [109], writes: For the argumentation presented in later sections, we would like to highlight the following: Russell?s paradoxes emerge when we try to assign the notion of self-reference between the system and its constituents. Unlike living organisms, the sets of artificial elements or Hilbert?s artificial systems of axioms are constructed from fixed components (they do not change due to their assembly in the system) and with no internal structure that can be a functional of the system as a whole as it is assembled. The system itself is also fixed in time or, more precisely, has no temporal ordering. The set is constructed (or the system of axioms is defined) by an external spectator who has the information about the system, i.e., the system doesn?t have internally stored information about itself and there are no intrinsic causal links between the constituents. 17 Turing?s Universal Computing Machine G?del?s theorem, though relating to the foundations of mathematical philosophy, led Alan Turing to invent the concept of computing machinery in 1936. His motivation was to test the relevance of three possibilities for formal axiomatic systems that are left undecidable in G?del?s theorems: 1. they can not be both self consistent and complete but can be either; 2. they can not be self-consistent; 3. they can not be complete. Turing proved that formal axiomatic systems must be at least incomplete. To prove his theorem, G?del used his code to map both symbols and operations. The proof itself, which is quite complicated, utilizes many recursively defined functions. Turing?s idea was to construct mapping between the natural numbers and their binary representation and to include all possible transformations between them to be performed by a conceptual machine. The latter performs the transformation according to a given set of pre-constructed instructions (program). Thus, while G?del used the natural numbers themselves to prove his theorems, Turing used the space of all possible programs, which is why he could come up with even stronger statements. For later reflections, we note that each program can be perceived as functional correlation between two numbers. In other words the inherent limitations of formal axiomatic systems are better transparent in the higher dimension space of functional correlations between the numbers. Next, Turing looked for the kind of questions that the machine in principle can?t solve irrespective of its physical size. He proved that the kinds of questions the machine can not solve are about its own performance. The best known is the ?halting problem?: the only way a machine can know if a given specific program will stop within a finite time is by actually running it until it stops. The proof is in the spirit of the previous ?self-reference games?: assume there is a program that can check whether any computer program will stop (Halt program). Prepare another program which makes an infinite loop i.e., never stops (Go program). Then, make a third Dual program which is composed of the first two such that a positive result of the Halt- Buster part will activate the Go-Booster part. Now, if the Dual program is fed as input to the Halt-Buster program it leads to a paradox: the Dual program is constructed so that, if it is to 18 stop, the Halt-Buster part will activate the Go-Booster part so it shouldn?t stop and vice versa. In a similar manner it can be proven that Turing machine in principle can not answer questions associated with running a program backward in time. Turing?s proof illustrates the fact that the notion of self-reference can not be part of the space of functional correlations generated by Universal Turing machine. In this sense, Turing proved that if indeed Nature is equivalent to his machine (the implicit assumption associated with causal determinism), we, as parts of this machine, can not in principle generate a complete description of its functioning - especially so with regard to issues related to systems? self-reference. The above argumentations appear as nothing more than, at best, an amusing game. Four years later (in 1940), Turing converted his conceptual machine into a real one ? the first electronic computer The Enigma, which helped its human users decipher codes used by another machine. For later discussion we emphasize the following: The Enigma provided the first illustration, that while Turing machine is limited in answering on its own questions about itself, it can provide a useful tool to aid humans in answering questions about other systems, both artificial and natural. In other words, Turing machine can be a very useful tool to help humans design another, improved Turing machine, but it is not capable of doing so on its own - it can not answer questions about itself. In this sense, stand alone machines can not have in principle the features we proposed to associate with natural intelligence. The Birth of Artificial Intelligence ? Turing?s Imitation Game In his 1936 paper [57], Turing claims that a universal computing machine of the kind he proposed can, in principle, perform any computation that a human being can carry out. Ten years later, he began to explore the potential range of functional capabilities of computing machinery beyond computing and in 1950 he published an influential paper, ?Computing Machinery and Intelligence? [55], which led to the birth of Artificial Intelligence. The paper starts with a statement: ?I propose to consider the question, ?Can machine think?? This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms ?machine? and ?think?. The definitions might be 19 framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous.? So, in order to avoid the pitfalls of definitions of terms like ?think? and ?intelligence?, Turing suggested replacing the question by another, which he claimed ?...is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words. The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ?imitation game?...? This proposed game, known as Turing?s Intelligence Test, involves three players: a human examiner of identities I, and two additional human beings, each having a different associated identity. Turing specifically proposed to use gender identity: a man A and a woman B. The idea of the game is that the identifier I knows (A;B) as (X;Y) and he has to identify, by written communication, who is who, aided by B (a cooperator) against the deceiving communication received from A (a defector). The purpose of I and B is that I will be able to identify who is A. The identity of I is not specified in Turing?s paper saying that he may be of either sex. It is implicitly assumed that the three players have a common language, which can be used also by machines, and that I, A, and B also have a notion about the identity of the other players. Turing looked at the game from a machinery vs. human perspective, asking ?What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?? He proposed that a machine capable of causing I to fail in his identifications as often as a man would, should be regarded intelligent. That is, the rate of false identifications of A made by I with the aid of B is a measure of the intelligence of A. So, Turing?s intelligence test is actually about self identity and associated identity and the ability to identify non-self identity of different kinds! Turing himself referred to his game as an ?imitation game?. Currently, the game is usually presented in a different version - an intelligent being I has to identify who the machine is, while the machine A attempts to imitated intelligent being. Moreover, it is perceived that the Inquirer I bases his identification according to which player appears to him more intelligent. Namely, the game is presented as 20 an intelligence competition, and not about Self-Non-Self identity as was originally proposed by Turing. From Kasparov?s Mistake to Bacterial Wisdom Already in 1947, in a public lecture [15], Turing presented a vision that within 50 years computers will be able to compete with people in the chess game. The victory of Deep Blue over Kasparov exactly 50 years later is perceived today by many, scientists and layman alike, as clear proof for computers? Artificial Intelligence [109,110]. Turing himself considered success in a chess game only a reflection of superior computational capabilities (the computer?s ability to compute very fast all possible configurations). In his view, success in the imitation game was a greater challenge. In fact, the connection between success in the imitation game and intelligence is not explicitly discussed in his 1950 paper. Yet, it has become to be perceived as an intelligence test and led to the current dominant view of Artificial Intelligence, that in principle any living organism is equivalent to a universal Turing machine [107-110]. Those who view the imitation game as an intelligence test of the machine usually assume that the machine?s success in the game reflects the machine?s inherent talent. We follow the view that the imitation game is not about the machine?s talent but about the talent of the designer of the machine who ?trained it? to play the role of A. The above interpretation is consistent with Kasparov?s description of his chess game with Deep Blue. According to him, he lost because he failed to foresee that after the first match (which he won) the computer was rebuilt and reprogrammed to play positional chess. So Kasparov opened with the wrong strategy, thus losing because of wrong decisionmaking not in chess but in predicting the intentions of his human opponents (he wrongly assumed that computer designing still hasn?t reached the level of playing positional chess). Thus he lost because he underestimated his opponents. The ability to properly evaluate self intelligence in comparison to that of others is an essential feature of natural intelligence. It illustrates that humans with higher analytical skills can have lower skills associated with natural intelligence and vice versa: the large team that designed and programmed Deep Blue properly evaluated Kasparov?s superior talent relative to that of each one of them on its own. 21 So, before the second match, they extended their team. Bacteria, being the most primordial organisms, had to adopt a similar strategy to survive when higher organisms evolved. The ?Bacterial Wisdom? principle [9,47], is that proper cooperation of individuals driven by a common goal can generate a new group-self with superior collective intelligence. However, the formation of such a collective self requires that each of the individuals will be able to alter its own self and adapt it to that of the group?s (Appendix A). Information-Based Artificial Intelligence vs. Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence We propose to associate (vs. define) meaning-based, natural intelligence with: conduction of semantic and pragmatic communication, assignment and generation of meaning, formation of self-identity (distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic meaning) and of associated identity (i.e., of the group the individual belongs to), identification of natural intelligence in other organisms, intentional behavior, decision-making and intentionally designed self alterations. Below we explain why this features are not likely to be sustained by a universal Turing machine, irrespective of how advanced its information-based artificial intelligence might be. Turing set his original imitation game to be played by machine rules: 1. The selfidentities are not allowed to be altered during the game. So, for example, the cooperators can not alter together their associated identity - the strategy bacteria adopt to identify defectors. 2. The players use fixed-in-time, universal-machine-like language (no semantic and pragmatic aspects). In contrast, the strategy bacteria use is to modify their dialect to improve the semantic and pragmatic aspect of their communication. 3. The efficiency of playing the game has no causal drive, i.e., there is no reward or punishment. 4. The time frame within which the game is to be played is not specified. As a result, there is inherent inconsistency in the way Turing formulated his imitation game, and the game can not let the special features of natural intelligence be expressed. As Turing proved, computing machines are equivalent to formal axiomatic systems that are constructed to be clean of meaning. Hence, by definition, no computer can generate its own intrinsic meanings that are distinguishable from externally imposed ones. Which, in turn, implies the obvious ? computers can not have inherent notions of identity and self22 identity. So, if the statement: ?When a machine takes the part of A in this game? refers to the machine as an independent player, the game has to be either inconsistent or undecidable. By independent player we mean the use of some general-purpose machine (i.e., designed without specific task in mind, which is analogous to the construction of a meaning-free, formal axiomatic system). The other possibility is that Turing had in mind a specific machine, specially prepared for the specific game with the specific players in mind. In this case, the formulation of the game has no inconsistency/undecidability, but then the game is about the meaning-based, causality-driven creativity of the designer of the machine and not about the machine itself. Therefore, we propose to interpret the statement ?When a machine takes the part of A? as implying that ?A sends a Pre-designed and Pre-programmed machine to play his role in the specific game?. The performance of a specific machine in a specific game is information-based Artificial Intelligence. The machine can even perform better than some humans in the specific game with agreed-upon, fixed rules (time invariant); it has been designed to play. However, the machine is the product of the meaning-based Natural Intelligence and the causality-driven creativity of its designer. The designer can design different machines according to the causal needs he foresees. Moreover, by learning from his experience and by using purposefully gathered knowledge, he can improve his skills to create better machines. It seems that Turing did realize the essential differences between some of the features we associate here with Natural Intelligence vs. Artificial Intelligence. So, for example, he wouldn?t have classified Deep Blue as an Intelligent Machine. In an unpublished report from 1948, entitled ?Intelligent Machinery?, machine intelligence is discussed mainly from the perspective of human intelligence. In this report, Turing explains that intelligence requires learning, which in turn requires the machine to have sufficient flexibility, including selfalteration capabilities (the equivalent of today?s neuro-plasticity). It is further implied that the machine should have the freedom to make mistakes. The importance of reward and punishment in the machine learning is emphasized (see the report summary shown below). Turing also relates the machine?s learning capabilities to what today would be referred to as genetic algorithm, one which would fit the recent realizations about the genome (Appendix F). In this regard, we point out that organisms? decision-making and creativity which are based on learning from experience (explained below) must involve learning from past 23 mistakes. Hence, an inseparable feature of natural intelligence is the freedom to err with readiness to bear the consequences. Beyond Machinery - Games of Natural Intelligence Since the rules of Turing?s imitation game do not let the special features of natural intelligence be expressed the game can not be used to distinguish natural from artificial intelligence. The rules of the game must be modified to let the features of natural intelligence be expressed, but in a manner machines can technically imitate. First, several kinds of communication channels that can allow exchange of meaning-bearing messages should be included, in addition to the written messages. Clearly, all communication channels should be such that can be transferred and synthesized by a machine; speech, music, pictures and physiological information (like that used in polygraph tests) are some examples of such channels. We emphasize that a two-way communication is used so, for example, the examiner (I) can present to (B) a picture he asked (A) to draw and vice versa. Second, the game should be set to test the ability of human (I) vs. machine (I) to make correct identification of (A) and (B), instead of testing the ability of human (A) vs. machine (A) to cause human (I) false identifications. Third, the game should start after the 24 examiner (I) has had a training period. Namely, a period of time during which he is let to communicate with (A) and (B) knowing who is who, to learn from his own experience about their identities. Both the training period and the game itself should be for a specified duration, say an hour each. The training period can be used by the examiners in various ways; for example, he can expose the players to pictures, music pieces, extracts from literature, and ask them to describe their impressions and feelings. He can also ask each of them to reflect on the response of the other one or explain his own response. Another efficient training can be to ask each player to create his own art piece and reflect on the one created by the other. The training period can also be used by the examiner (I) to train (B) in new games. For example, he could teach the other players a new game with built-in rewards for the three of them to play. What we suggest is a way to instill in the imitation game intrinsic meaning for the player by reward and decision-making. The game can be played to test the ability of machine (I) vs. human (I) to distinguish correctly between various kinds of identities: machine vs. human (in this case, the machine should be identical to the one who plays the examiner), or two associated human identities (like gender, age, profession etc). The above are examples of natural intelligence games we expect machinery to lose, and as such they can provide proper tests to distinguish their artificial intelligence from the natural intelligence of living systems. Let Bacteria Play the Game of Natural Intelligence We proposed that even bacteria have natural intelligence beyond machinery: unlike a machine, a bacterial colony can improve itself by alteration of gene expression, cell differentiation and even generation of new inheritable genetic ?tools?. During colonial development, bacteria collectively use inherited knowledge together with causal information it gathers from the environment, including other organisms (Appendix A). For that, semantic chemical messages are used by the bacteria to conduct dialogue, to cooperatively assess their situation and make contextual decisions accordingly for better colonial adaptability (Appendix B). Should these notions be understood as useful metaphors or as disregarded reality? 25 Another example of natural intelligence game could be a Bridge game between a machine and human team playing the game against a team of two human players. This version of the game is similar to the real life survival ?game? between cooperators and cheaters (cooperative behavior of organisms goes hand in hand with cheating, i.e., selfish individuals who take advantage of the cooperative effort). An efficient way cooperators can single out the defectors is by using their natural intelligence - semantic and pragmatic communication for collective alteration of their own identity, to outsmart the cheaters who use their own natural intelligence for imitating the identity of the cooperators [111-114]. In Appendix A we describe how even bacteria use communication to generate evolvable self-identity together with special ?dialect?, so fellow bacteria can find each one in the crowd of strangers (e.g., biofilms of different colonies of the same and different species). For that, they use semantic chemical messages that can initiate specific alteration only with fellow bacteria and with shared common knowledge (Appendix C). So in the presence of defectors they modify their self-identity in a way unpredictable to an external observer not having the same genome and specific gene-expression state. The external observer can be other microorganisms, our immune system or our scientific tools. The experimental challenge to demonstrate the above notions is to devise an identity game bacteria can play to test if bacteria can conduct a dialogue to recognize self vs. non-self [111-114]. Inspired by Turing?s imitation game, we adopted a new conceptual methodology to let the bacteria tell us about their self-identity, which indeed they do: Bacterial colonies from the same culture are grown under the same growth conditions to show that they exhibit similar-looking patterns (Fig 1), as is observed during self-organization of azoic systems [7,8,99,100]. However, unlike for azoic systems, each of the colonies develops its own self identity in a manner no azoic system is expected to do. 26 Fig 1. Observed level of reproducibility during colonial developments: Growth of two colonies of the Paenibacillus vortex taken from the same parent colony and under the same growth conditions. For that, the next stage is to growth of four colonies on the same plate. In one case all are taken from the same parent colony and in the other case they are taken from two different yet similar-looking colonies (like those shown in Fig 1). In preliminary experiments we found that the growth patterns in the two cases are significantly different. These observations imply that the colonies can recognize if the other colonies came from the same parent colony or from a different one. We emphasize that this is a collective phenomenon, and if the bacteria taken from the parent colonies are first grown as isolated bacteria in fluid, the effect is washed out. It has been proposed that such colonial self-identity might be generated during the several hours of stationary ?embryonic stage? or collective training duration of the colonies between the time they are placed on the new surface and start to expand. During this duration, they collectively generate their own specific colonial self identity [62,63]. These findings revive Schr?dinger?s dilemma, about the conversion of genetic information (embedded in structural coding) into a functioning organism. A dilemma largely assumed to be obsolete in light of the new experimental findings in life sciences when combined with the Neo-Darwinian the Adaptive Complex Systems paradigms [51,115-120]. The latter, currently the dominant paradigm in the science of complexity is based on the ?top-level emergence? principle which has evolved from Anderson?s constructivism (?More is Different? [53]). 27 Beyond Neo-Darwinism ? Symbiogenesis on All Levels Accordingly it is now largely assumed that all aspects of life can in principle be explained solely on the basis of information storage in the structure of the genetic material. Hence, an individual bacterium, bacterial colony or any eukaryotic organism is in principle analogous to a pre-designed Turing machine. In this analogy, the environment provides energy (electric power of the computer) and absorbs the metabolic waste products (the dissipated heat), and the DNA is the program that runs on the machine. Unlike in an ordinary Turing machine, the program also has instructions for the machine to duplicate and disassemble itself and assemble many machines into an advanced machine ? the dominant Top-Level Emergence view in the studies of complex systems and system-biology based on the Neo-Darwinian paradigm. However, recent observations during bacterial cooperative self-organization show features that can not be explained by this picture (Appendix A). Ben Jacob reasoned that Anderson?s constructivism is insufficient to explain bacterial self-organization. Hence, it should be extended to a ?More is Different on All Levels? or all-level generativism [9]. The idea is that biotic self-organization involves self-organization and contextual alteration of the constituents of the biotic system on all levels (down to the genome). The alterations are based on stored information, external information, information processing and collective decisionmaking following semantic and pragmatic communication on all levels. Intentional alterations (neither pre-designed nor due to random changes) are possible, however, only if they are performed on all levels. Unlike the Neo-Darwinian based, top-level emergence, alllevel emergence can account for the features associated with natural intelligence. For example, in the colony, communication allows collective alterations of the intracellular state of the individual bacteria, including the genome, the intracellular gel and the membrane. For bacterial colony as an organism, all-level generativism requires collective ?natural genetic engineering? together with ?creative genomic webs? [45-47]. In a manuscript entitled: ?Bacterial wisdom, G?del?s theorem and Creative Genomic Webs?, Ben Jacob refers to the following special genomic abilities of individual bacteria when being the building agents of a colony. 28 In the prologue we quoted Margulis? and Sagan?s criticisms of the incompleteness of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm and the crucial role of symbiogenesis in the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes and the evolution of the latter. With regard to eukaryotic organisms, an additional major difficulty arises from the notion that all the required information to sustain the life of the organism is embedded in the structure of its genetic code: this information seems useless without the surrounding cellular machinery [123,124]. While the structural coding contains basic instructions on how to prepare many components of the machinery ? namely, proteins ? it is unlikely to contain full instructions on how to assemble them into multi-molecular structures to create a functional cell. We mentioned mitochondria that carry their own genetic code. In addition, membranes, for example, contain lipids, which are not internally coded but are absorbed from food intake according to the functional state of the organism. Thus, we are back to Schr?dinger?s chicken-and-egg paradox ? the coding parts of the DNA require pre-existing proteins to create new proteins and to make them functional. The problem may be conceptually related to Russell?s self-reference paradoxes and G?del?s theorems: it is possible in principle to construct mapping between the genetic information and statements about the genetic information. Hence, according to a proper version of G?del?s theorem (for finite system [47]), the structural coding can not be both complete and self-consistent for the organism to live, replicate and have programmed cell death. In this sense, the Neo-Darwinian paradigm can not be both self-consistent and complete to describe 29 the organism?s lifecycle. In other words, within this paradigm, the transition from the coding part of the DNA to the construction of a functioning organism is metaphorically like the construction of mathematics from a formal axiomatic system. This logical difficulty is discussed by Winfree [125] in his review on Delbruck?s book ?Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology?. 30 New discoveries about the role of transposable elements and the abilities of the Junk DNA to alter the genome (including generation of new genes) during the organism?s lifecycle support the new picture proposed in the above mentioned paper. So, it seems more likely now that indeed the Junk DNA and transposable elements provide the necessary mechanisms for the formation of creative genomic webs. The human genome project provided additional clues about the functioning of the genome, and in particular the Junk DNA in light of the unexpectedly low number of coding genes together with equally unexpectedly high numbers of transposable elements, as described in Appendix B. These new findings on the genomic level together with the new understanding about the roles played by mitochondria [126-132] imply that the current Neo-Darwinian paradigm should be questioned. Could it be that mitochondria ? the intelligent intracellular bacterial colonies in eukaryotic cells, provide a manifestation of symbiogenesis on all levels? Learning from Experience ? Harnessing the Past to Free the Future Back to bacteria, the colony as a whole and each of the individual bacteria are continuously self-organized open systems: The colonial self-organization is coupled to the internal selforganization process each of the individual bacteria. Three intermingled elements are involved in the internal process: 1. genetic components, including the chromosomal genetic sequences and additional free genetic elements like transposons and plasmids. 2. the 31 membrane, including the integrated proteins and attached networks of proteins, etc. 3. The intracellular gel, including the machinery required to change its composition, to reorganize the genetic components, to reorganize the membrane, to exchange matter, energy and information with the surrounding, etc. In addition, we specifically follow the assumption that usable information can be stored in its internal state of spatio-temporal structures and functional correlations. The internal state can be self-altered, for example via alterations of the part of the genetic sequences which store information about transcription control. Hence, the combination of the genome and the intra-cellular gel is a system with self reference. Hence, the following features of genome cybernetics [9,50] can be sustained. 1. storage of past external information and its contextual internal interpretation. 2. storage of past information about the system?s past selected and possible states. 3. hybrid digital-analog processing of information. 4. hybrid hardware-software processing of information. The idea is that the hardware can be self-altered according to the needs and outcome of the information processing, and part of the software is stored in the structure of the hardware itself, which can be self-altered, so the software can have self reference and change itself. Such mechanisms may take a variety of different forms. The simplest possibility is by ordinary genome regulation ? the state of gene expression and communication-based collective gene expression of many organisms. For eukaryotes, the mitochondria acting like a bacterial colony can allow such collective gene expression of their own independent genes. In this regard, it is interesting to note that about 2/3 of the mitochondria?s genetic material is not coding for proteins. Genome cybernetics has been proposed to explain the reconstruction of the coding DNA nucleus in ciliates [133,134]. The specific strains studied have two nuclei, one that contains only DNA coded for proteins and one only non-coding DNA. Upon replication, the coding nucleus disintegrates and the non-coding is replicated. After replication, the non-coding nucleus builds a new coding nucleus. It has been shown that it is done using the transposable elements in a computational process. More recent work shows that transposable elements can effectively re-program the genome between replications [135]. In yeast, these elements can insert themselves into messenger 32 RNA and give rise to new proteins without eliminating old ones[136]. These findings illustrate that rather than wait for mutations to occur randomly, cells can apparently keep some genetic variation on tap and move them to ?hard disk? storage in the coding part of the DNA if they turn out to be beneficial over several life cycles. Some observations hint that the collective intelligence of the intracellular mitochondrial colonies play a crucial role in these processes of self-improvement [128-132]. Here, we further assume the existence of the following features: 5. storage of the information and the knowledge explicitly in its internal spatiotemporal structural organizations. 6. storage of the information and the knowledge implicitly in functional organizations (composons) in its corresponding high dimensional space of affinities. 7. continuous generation of models of itself by reflection forward (in the space of affinities) its stored knowledge. The idea of high dimensional space of affinities (renormalized correlations) has been developed by Baruchi and Ben Jacob [137], for analyzing multi-channel recorded activity (from gene expression to human cortex). They have shown the coexistence of functional composons (functional sub-networks) in the space of affinities for recorded brain activity. With this picture in mind, the system?s models of itself are not necessarily dedicated ?units? of the system in the real space but in the space of affinities, so the models should be understood as a caricature of the system in real space including themselves - caricature in the sense that maximal meaningful information is represented. In addition, the system?s hierarchical organization enables the smaller scales to contain information about the larger scale they themselves form ? metaphorically, like the formation of meanings of words in sentences as we explain in Appendix B. The larger scale, the analog of the sentence and the reader?s previous knowledge, selects between the possible lower scale organizations. The system?s real time is represented in the models by a faster internal time, so at every moment in real time the system has information about possible caricatures of itself at later times. 33 The reason that internal multiple composons (that serve as models) can coexist has to do with the fact that going backward in time is undecidable for external observer (e.g., solving backward reaction-diffusion equations is undetermined). So what we suggest is that, by projecting the internally stored information about the past (which can not be reconstruct by external observer), living organisms utilize the fact that going backward in time is undetermined for regulated freedom of response: to have a range of possible courses of future behavior from which they have the freedom to select intentionally according to their past experience, present circumstances, and inherent predictions of the future. In contrast, the fundamental assumption in the studies of complex adaptive systems according to Gell-Mann [115], is that the behavior of organisms is determined by accumulations of accidents. Any entity in the world around us, such as an individual human being, owes its existence not only to the simple fundamental law of physics and the boundary condition on the early universe but also to the outcomes of an inconceivably long sequence of probabilistic events, each of which could have turned out differently. Now a great many of those accidents, for instance most cases of the bouncing of a particular molecule in a gas to the right rather than the left in a molecular collision, have few ramifications for the future coarse-grained histories. Sometimes, however, an accident can have widespread consequences for the future, although those are typically restricted to particular regions of space and time. Such a "frozen accident" produces a great deal of mutual algorithmic information among various parts or aspects of a future coarsegrained history of the universe, for many such histories and for various ways of dividing them up. We propose that organisms use stored relevant information to generate an internal mixed yet decomposable (separable) state of multiple options analogous to quantum mechanical superposition of states .In this sense the process of decision-making to select a specific response to external stimuli is conceptually like the projection of the wave function in quantum mechanical measurement. There are two fundamental differences, though: 1. In quantum measurement, the external observer directly causes the collapse of the system on a specific eigenstate he pre-selects. Namely, the eigenstate is predetermined while its corresponding eigenvalue is not. In the organism?s decision-making, the external stimuli initiate the selection of a specific state (collapse on a specific response). The selected state is in principle unknown directly to an external observer. The initiated internal decomposition of the mixed states and the selection of a specific one are performed according to stored past information. 2. In quantum measurement, the previous possible (expected) eigenvalues of the other eigenstates are erased and assigned new uncertainties. In the organism?s decision 34 making the process is qualitatively different: the external stimuli initiate decomposition of the mixed states by the organism itself. The information about the other available options is stored after the selection of the specific response. Therefore, the unselected past options are expected to affect consequent decision-making. Decomposable Mixed State of Multiple-Options ? A Metaphor or Testable Reality? The above picture is rejected on the grounds that in principle the existence of a mixed and decomposable state of multiple options can not be tested experimentally. In this sense, the objection is similar in spirit to the objections to the existence of the choice function in mathematics (Appendix D), and the wave function in physics (Appendix E). The current experimental methodology in life science (disintegrating the organism or exposing it to lethal stress), is conceptually similar to the notion of ?strong measurements? or ?destructive measurements? in quantum mechanics in which the wave function is forced to collapse. Therefore, the existence of an internal state decomposable only by the organism itself can not be tested by that approach. A new conceptual methodology is required, of protective biotic measurements. For example, biofluoremetry can be used to measure the intracellular spatio-temporal organization and functional correlations in a living organism exposed to weak stress. Conceptually, fluoremetry is similar to quantum non-demolition and weak stress is similar to the notion of weak quantum measurements. Both allow the measurement of the quantum state of a system without forcing the wave function to collapse. Bacterial collective learning when exposed to non-lethal levels of antibiotics provide an example of protective biotic measurements (Appendix E). 35 Fig 2. Confocal image of mitochondria within a single cultured rat cortical astrocyte stained with the calcium-sensitive dye rhod-2 which partitions into mitochondria, permitting direct measurements of intramitochondrial calciuum concentration (curtsey of Michael Duchen). It should be kept in mind that the conceptual analogy with quantum mechanics is subtle and can be deceiving rather than inspiring if not properly used. For clarification, let us consider the two-slit experiment for electrons. When the external observer measures through which of the slits the electron passes, the interference pattern is washed out - the measurement causes the wave function of the incoming electron to collapse on one of the two otherwise available states. Imagine now an equivalent two-slit experiment for organisms. In this thought experiment, the organisms arrive at a wall with two closely located narrow open gates. Behind the wall there are many bowls of food placed along an arc so that they are all at equal distance from the gates. The organisms first choose through which of the two gates to pass and then select one bowl of food. The experiment is performed with many organisms, and the combined decisions are presented in a histogram of the selected bowls. In the control experiment, two independent histograms are measured, for each door separately (no decisionmaking is required). The distribution when the two gates are open is compared with the sum of the distributions for the single gates. A statistically significant difference will indicate that past unselected options can influence consequent decision-making even if the following decision involves a different choice altogether (gates vs. food bowls). 36 Upon completion of this monograph, the development of a Robot-Scientist has just been reported [138]. The machine was given the problem of discovering the function of different genes in yeast, to demonstrate its ability to generate a set of hypotheses from what is known about biochemistry and then design experiments and interpret the results (assign meaning) without human help. Does this development provide the ultimate proof that there is no distinction between Artificial Intelligence and Natural Intelligence? Obviously, advanced automated technology interfaced with learning software can have important contribution. It may replace human researchers from doing what machines can do, thus freeing them to be more creative and to devote more effort to their beyond-machinery thinking. We don?t expect, however, that a robot scientist will be able to design experiments to test, for example, self-identity and decision-making, for the simple reason that it could not grasp these concepts. Epilogue ? From Bacteria Shalt Thou Learn Mutations as the causal driving force for the emergence of the diversity and complexity of organisms and biosystems became the most fundamental principle in life sciences ever since Darwin gave mutations a key role in natural selection. Consequently, research in life sciences has been guided by the assumption that the complexity of life can become comprehensible if we accumulate sufficient amounts of detailed information. The information is to be deciphered with the aid of advanced mathematical method within the Neo-Darwinian schemata. To quote Gell-Mann, Life can perfectly well emerge from the laws of physics plus accidents, and mind, from neurobiology. It is not necessary to assume additional mechanisms or hidden causes. Once emergence is considered, a huge burden is lifted from the inquiring mind. We don't need something more in order to get something more. This quote represents the currently, dominant view of life as a unique physical phenomenon that began as a colossal accident, and continues to evolve via sequences of accidents selected by random number generators ? the omnipotent idols of science. We reason that, according to 37 this top-level emergence picture, organisms could not have evolved to have meaning-based, natural intelligence beyond that of machinery. Interestingly, Darwin himself didn?t consider mutations to be necessarily random, and thought the environment can trigger adaptive changes in organisms ? a notion associated with Lamarckism. Darwin did comment, however, that it is reasonable to treat alterations as random, so long as we do not know their origin. He says: ?I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations were due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation? lead to the conclusion that variability is generally related to the conditions of life to which each species has been exposed during several successive generations?. In 1943, Luria and Delbruck performed a cornerstone experiment to prove that random mutation exist by exposing bacteria to lethal conditions ? bacteriophage that immediately kills non-resistant bacteria. Therefore, only cells with pre-existing specific mutations could survive. The other cells with didn?t have the chance to alter their self - a possibility that could not be ruled out by the experiments. Nevertheless, these experiments were taken as a crucial support for the Neo-Darwinian dogma which states that all mutations are random, and can occur only during DNA replication. To bridge between these experiments, Turing?s imitation game and the notion of weak measurements in quantum mechanics, we suggest to test natural intelligence by first giving the organisms a chance to learn from hard but non-lethal conditions. We also proposed to let the bacteria play identity game proper for testing their natural intelligence, similar in spirit to the real life games played between different colonies and even with other organisms [139]. In Turing?s footsteps, we propose to play his imitation game with the reverse goal in mind. Namely, human players participate in the game to learn about themselves. By playing this reverse game with bacteria, - Nature?s fundamental organisms from which all life emerged - we should be able to learn about the very essence of our self. This is especially so when keeping in mind that the life, death and well being of each of our cells depend on the cooperation of its own intelligent bacterial colony ? the mitochondria. Specifically, we believe that understanding bacterial natural intelligence as manifested in mitochondria might be crucial for understanding the meaning-based natural intelligence of the immune system 38 and the central nervous system, the two intelligent systems we use for interacting with other organisms in the game of life. Indeed, it has recently been demonstrated that mice with identical nuclear genomes can have very different cognitive functioning if they do not have the same mitochondria in their cytoplasm. The mitochondria are not transferred with the nucleus during cloning procedures [140]. To quote Schr?dinger, Democritus introduces the intellect having an argument with the senses about what is 'real'. The intellect says; 'Ostensibly there is color, ostensibly sweetness, ostensibly bitterness, actually only atoms and the void.' To which the senses retort; 'Poor intellect, do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat.' Acknowledgment We thank Ben Jacob?s student, Itay Baruchi, for many conversations about the potential implications of the space of affinities, the concept he and Eshel have recently developed together. Some of the ideas about bacterial self-organization and collective intelligence were developed in collaboration with Herbert Levine. We benefited from enlightening conversations, insights and comments by Michal Ben-Jacob, Howard Bloom, Joel Isaacson, Yuval Neeman and Alfred Tauber. The conceptual ideas could be converted into concrete observations thanks to the devoted and precise work of Inna Brainis. This work was supported in part by the Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems. Personal Thanks by Eshel Ben-Jacob About twenty-five years ago, when I was a physics graduate student, I read the book ?The Myth of Tantalus? and discovered there a new world of ideas. I went to seek the author, and found a special person with vast knowledge and human approach. Our dialogue led to the establishment of a unique, multidisciplinary seminar, where themes like ?the origin of creativity? and ?mind and matter? were discussed from different perspectives. Some of the questions have remained with me ever since, and are discussed in this monograph. 39 Over the years I have had illuminating dialogues with my teacher Yakir Aharonov about the foundations of quantum mechanics and with my friend Adam Tenenbaum about logic and philosophy. In my Post-Doctoral years, I was very fortunate to meet the late Uri Merry, who introduced me to the world of social science and linguistics and to Buber?s philosophy. Among other things, we discussed the role of semantic and pragmatic communication in the emergence of individual and group self. References [1] Schr?dinger, E. (1943) What is life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Based on lectures delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin, in February 1943. home.att.net/~p.caimi/Life.doc ; (1944) What is life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cel Cambridge University Press. (1958) Mind and Matter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (1992) What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell with Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches with forward by R. Penrose [2] Delbr?ck, M. (1946) Heredity and variations in microorganisms. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol., 11 ; Delbruck, M. (1986) Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology Blackwell Scientific Publication [3]Winfree,A. T. (1988) Book review on Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology Bul. Math. Biol 50, 193-207 [4] Hemmer, P.C., Holden, H. and ratkje, S.K. (1996) The Collected Work of Lars Onsager World Scientific [5] Prigogine, I. and Nicolis, G. (1977) Self-organization in NonEequlibrium Systems;From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations Wiley&Sons Prigogine, I. (1980) From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences H. Freeman&Co [6] Cross, M.C. and Hohenberg, P.C. (1993) Pattern formation outside of equilibrium , Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 [7] Ben Jacob, and Garik, P. (1990) The formation of patterns in non-equilibrium growth Nature 33 523-530 [8] Ben Jacob, E. (1993) From snowflake formation to growth of bacterial colonies. I. Diffusive patterning in azoic systems Contemp Physics 34 247-273 ; (1997) II. Cooperative formation of complex colonial patterns Contem. Physics 38 205-241 40 [9] Ben-Jacob, E. (2003) Bacterial self-organization: co-enhancement of complexification and adaptability in a dynamic environment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A361,1283-1312 [10] Schweitzer, F. (1997) Self-Organization of Complex Structures from Individual to Collective Dynamics Gordon&Breach [11] Ball, P. (1999) The Self-Made Tapestry: Pattern Formation in Nature Oxford University Press [12] Camazine, S. et al (2001) Self-Organization in Biological Systems Princeton University Press [13] Turing, A.M. (1952) The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (London), 237, 37-72, 1952. [14] Saunders, P.T. (1992) Morphogenesis: Collected Works of AM Turing Vol 3 of Furbank, P.N. (1992) The Collected Work of A. M. Turing North Holand Pulications [15] Turing, A.M. Unpublished material Turing archive at King's College Cambridge, and the Manchester National Archive for the History of Computing [16]Lovelock, James. 1995. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Lovelock, James. 1988. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. New York: W.W. Norton. [17] Margulies, L. and Dolan, M.F. (2002) Early life, Jones and Bartlett ; (1998) Five Kingdoms ; (2002) Early Life: Evolution on the Precambrian Earth (with Dolan, M. F.) ; (1997) Microcosmos; Four Billion Years of Evolution from Our Microbial Ancestors (with Sagan, D.) [18] Sahtouris, E. (2001) What Our Human Genome Tell Us? EcoISP ; Sahtouris, Elisabet, with Swimme, Brian and Liebes, Sid. (1998) A Walk Through Time: From Stardust to Us. Wiley: New York.; Harman, Willis and Sahtouris, Elisabet. 1998. Biology Revisioned. North Atlantic Books: Berkeley, CA. 41 [19]E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, H. Levine, Cooperative self-organization of microorganisms, Adv. Phys. 49 (2000) 395-554 [20]Microbiology: A human perspective E.W. Nester, D.G. Anderson, C.E. Roberts, N.N Pearsall, M.T. Nester, (3rd Edition), McGraw Hill, New York 2001; [21]Shapiro, J.A. and Dworkin, M. (Eds.), (1997) Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms Oxford University Press, New York [22]Shapiro, J.A. (1988) Bacteria as multicellular organisms, Sci. Am. 258 62-69; J. Shapiro, J.A. (1995) The significance of bacterial colony patterns, BioEssays, 17 597- 607. Shapiro, J.A. (1998) Thinking about bacterial populations as multicellular organisms, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 52 81-104 [23] Losick, R. and Kaiser, D. (1997) Why and how bacteria communicate, Sci. Am. 276 68- 73; Losick, R. and Kaiser, D. (1993) How and Why Bacteria talk to each other, Cell 73 873-887 [24]Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I. and Gutnick, D.L. (1998) Cooperative organization of bacterial colonies: From genotype to morphotype. Annu. Rev. Microbiol., 52 779-806 [25] Rosenberg, E. (Ed.), (1999) Microbial Ecology and Infectious Disease, ASM Press [26] Crespi, B.J. (2001) The evolution of social behaviour in microorganisms. TrendsEcol. Evol. 16, 178-183 [27] Kolenbrander, P.E. et al (2002) Communication among oral bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 66, 486-505 [28] Ben-Jacob, E. et al. (1994) Generic modeling of cooperative growth patterns in bacterial colonies. Nature 368, 46-49 [29] Matsushita, M. and Fujikawa, H. (1990) Diffusion-limited growth in bacterial colony formation. Physica A 168, 498-506 [30] Ohgiwari, M. et al. (1992) Morphological changes in growth of bacterial colony patterns. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 61, 816-822 [31] Komoto, A. et al (2003) Growth dynamics of Bacillus circulans colony. J. Theo. Biology 225, 91-97 [32] Di Franco, C. et al. (2002) Colony shape as a genetic trait in the pattern-forming Bacillus mycoides. BMC Microbiol 2(1):33 [33]Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I. and A. Czir?k. (1997) Smart bacterial colonies. In Physics of Biological Systems: From Molecules to Species, Lecture Notes in Physics, pages 307-324. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 42 [34]Ben-Jacob, E. et al. (1995) Complex bacterial patterns. Nature, 373:566-567, [35]Budrene, E.O. and Berg, H.C. (1991) Complex patterns formed by motile cells of Esherichia coli. Nature, 349:630-633 ; (1995) Dynamics of formation of symmetrical patterns by chemotactic bacteria. Nature, 376:49-53 [36]Blat, Y.and Eisenbach, M. (1995). Tar-dependent and -independent pattern formation by Salmonella typhimurium . J. Bac., 177(7):1683-1691 [37] S. E. Luria and M. Delbr?ck. Mutations of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance. Genetics, 28:491-511, 1943. [38] Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton, New York, 1986. The Extended Phenotype. W.H. Freeman, Oxford, 1972. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1976. [39]Gould, S. J. (1977) Ever Since Darwin. W.W. Norton, New York [40]Jacob, J. (1993) The Logic of Life, A History of Heredity. Princeton University Press. [41]Joset, F. and Guespin-Michel, J. (1993) Prokaryotic Genetics. Blackwell Scientific Publishing, London [42]Keller, E.F. (1983) A Feeling for The Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. W.H. Freeman&Company [43] Margulis, L. (1992) Symbiosis in Cell Evolution: Microbial Communities in the Archean and Proterozoic Eons W.H. Freeman&Company ;Margulis, L., Sagan, D. and Morrison, P. (1997) Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution Copernicus Books ; Margulis, L. Sagan, D. (1999) Symbiotic Planet A New Look At EvolutionBasic Books [44] Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. (2003) Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species Perseus Publishing ; Chapman, M.J. and Margulis, L. (1998) Morphogenesis and symbiogenesis Intl. Microbiol. 1 319-329 . [45] Shapiro, J.A. (1992) Natural genetic engineering in evolution. Genetica 86, 99-111 [46]Wesson, R. (1993) Beyond Natural Selection. The MIT Press, London [47] Ben-Jacob, E. (1998) Bacterial wisdom, Godel?s theorem and creative genomic webs. Physica A 248, 57-76 [48] Duchen, M.R., Leyssens, A. and Crompton, M. (1998). Transient mitochondrial depolarisations in response to focal SR calcium release in single rat cardiomyocytes., J. Cell Biol., 142(4), 1-14. 43 [49] Leyssens, A., Nowicky, A.V., Patterson, D.L., Crompton, M., and Duchen, M.R., (1996). The relationship between mitochondrial state, ATP hydrolysis, [Mg2+]i and [Ca2+]i studied in isolated rat cardiomyocytes. J. Physiol., 496, 111-128 [50] Palmer, J.D. (1997) The Mitochondrion that Time Forgot, Nature, 387. 454-455. [51] Holland, J.H. (2000) Emergence from chaos to order Oxford University Press, [52] Kurzweil, R. (1992) The Age of Intelligent Machines MIT Press ; (2000) The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence Penguin [53] Anderson, P. (1972) More is different Science 177, 393-396 [54]Turing, A.M. (1948) Intelligent Machinery unpublished report. [55]Turing, A.M. (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence Mind 59 no 236, 433-460 [56] Siegelmann, H.T. (1995) Computation beyond the Turing machine. Science, 268:545- 548 [57]Turing, A.M. (1936) On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem Proc. London. Math. Soc. 42, 230-265 [58]G?del, K. (1931) On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems Mathematik und Physik, 38 173-198 [59]Nagel, E. and Newman, J.R.(1958) Godel's Proof New York University Press ; (1995) Godel?s Collected Work, Unpublished Essays and Lectures Oxford University Press [60]Hofstadter, D.R. (1979) G?del, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid basic Books [61]Chaitin, G.J. (2002) Computers, Paradoxes and the foundations of mathematics American Scientist March-April issue [62] Ben Jacob, E. et al. (2002) Bacterial cooperative organization under antibiotic stress. Physica A 282, 247-282 44 [63]Golding, I. and Ben Jacob, E. (2001) The artistry of bacterial colonies and the antibiotic crisis in Coherent Structures in Complex Systems. Selected Papers of the XVII Sitges Conference on Statistical Mechanics. Edited by Reguera, D., Bonilla, L.L. and Rubi, J.M. [64] Alimova. A. et al. (2003) Native Fluorescence and Excitation Spectroscopic Changes in Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus Bacteria Subjected to Conditions of Starvation Applied Optics, 42, 4080-4087 [65]Katz, A. et al. (2002) Noninvasive native fluorescence imaging of head and neck tumors, Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, 1, 9-16 Applied Optics, Volume 42, Issue 19, 4080-4087 July 2003 [66]Deutsch, M.; Zurgil, N. and Kaufman, M. (2000) Spectroscopic Monitoring of Dynamic Processes in Individual Cells. In: Laser Scanning Technology. Oxford, Oxford University Press [67] Tauber, A. (1991) Organisms and the Origin of Self Durdercht Kluwer Academic Publishers [68] Tauber, A. (1994) The Immune Self: Theory or Metaphor? Cambridge University Press [69]Shoham, S.G. (1979) The Myth of Tantalus: scaffolding for an ontological personality University of Queensland Press [70]Bohm, D. (1996) On Dialogue, Routledge [71]Merry, U. (1995) Coping with uncertainty, Praeger Publishers [72]Rose, S. (1976) The Conscious Brain. Vintage Books, New-York, 1976. [73]Penrose, R. (1996) Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness Oxford University Press ; Penrose, R. and Gardner, M. (2002) The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics Oxford University Press ; Penrose, R. (2000) The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (with Longair, M., Shimony, A., Cartwright, N. and Hawking, S.) Cambridge University Press [74] Bloom, H. (2001) Global Brain John Wiley&sons 45 [75] Kaufman, S. (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self- Organization and Complexity Oxford University Press ; (2002) Investigations Oxford University Press [76] Sperber D. and Wilson, D. Basil Blackwell, (1986) Relevance, Communication and Cognition, Basil Blackwell Oxford [77] Aitchison, J. and Atchison, J. (1999) Linguistics, NTC Contemporary Pub. Group. Chicago [78] Grice, H.P. (1989) Studies in the Ways of Words, Academic Press, New York [79]Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford University Press, New York. [80] Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: HarperCollins [81]Jones, S. (1993) The Language of The Genes. Flaming, Glasgow [82]Peng, C. K. et al. (1992)Long-range correlations in nucleotide sequences. Nature, 356:168-171 [83] Mantegen, R.N. et al. (1994) Linguistic features of noncoding DNA sequences. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3169-3172 [84] Ptashne, M. and Gann, A. (2002) Genes and signals, Cold Spring Harbor Press [85]. Nowak, M.A et al. (2002) Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature 417, 611-617 [86] Searls, D.B. (2002) The Language of genes. Nature 420, 211-217 [87] Losick, R. and Kaiser, D. (1997) Why and how bacteria communicate. Sci. Am. 276, 68-73 [88] Wirth, R. et al.. (1996) The Role of Pheromones in Bacterial Interactions. Trends Microbiol. 4, 96-103 [89] Salmond, G.P.C. et al. (1995) The bacterial enigma: Cracking the code of cell-cell communication. Mol. Microbiol. 16, 615-624 [90] Dunny, G.M. and Winans, S.C. (1999) Cell-Cell Signaling in Bacteria, ASM Press [91] Shimkets, L.J. (1999) Intercellular signaling during fruiting-body development of Myxococcus xanthus. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 53, 525-549 [92] Bassler, B.L. (2002) Small talk: cell-to-cell communication in bacteria. Cell 109, 421-424 46 [93] Ben Jacob, E. et al. (2003) Communication-based regulated freedom of response in bacterial colonies Physica A 330 218-231 [94]Raichman, N. et al. (2004) Engineered self-organization of natural and man-made systems in Continuum Models and Discrete Systems (in press) [95] The Open University (2004) The Clock Work Universe in The Physical World series [96] Collier, John. (2003) Hierarchical Dynamical Information Systems With a Focus on Biology Entropy 5(2): 100-124 ; Holism and Emergence: Dynamical Complexity Defeats Laplace's Demon (unpublished) [97] Swartz, N. (1997) Philosophical Notes URL http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm [98] Hoefer, C. (2004) Causal Determinism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [99] Ben-Jacob, E. and Garik, P. (1990) The formation of patterns in non-equilibrium growth. Nature, 343: 523-530 [100] Ben Jacob, E. and Herbert, L. (2001) The artistry of Nature 409, 985-986 [101] Searle, John R. (1984). Minds, Brains and Science. Harvard University Press [102] Dennett, Daniel C. (1978). Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. [103] Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). The Computer and the Mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. [104]Lucas, J.R. (1964) Minds, Machines and G?del, in Minds and Machines, ed. Alan R. Anderson Englewood Cliffs [105]Dennett, D. (1993). Book Review: Allen Newell, Unified Theories of Cognition, Artificial Intelligence, 59, 285-294. [106]Rapaport, W.J. (1995). Understanding Understanding: Syntactic Semantics and Computational Cognition, Philosophical Perspectives 9. [107] Searl, J.R. (2001) Is the Brain a Digital Computer? McGraw-Hill [108] Kay, K. (2001) Machines and the Mind: Do artificial intelligence systems incorporate intrinsic meaning? The Harvard Brain Vol 8 [109] Lrson, E. Rethinking Deep Blue:Why a Computer Can't Reproduce a Mind Access Research Network Origins & Design Archives 47 [110] Schaeffer, J. and Plaat, A. (1997) Kasparov versus Deep Blue: The Re-match ICCA Journal vol. 20,. 95-102 [110]Nelson, E. (1999) Mathematics and the Mind in Toward a Science of Consciousness - Fundamental Approaches [111] Velicer, G.J. (2003) Social strife in the microbial world. Trends Microbiol. 7, 330-337 [112] Strassmann, (2000) Bacterial Cheaters Nature 404 555-556 [113] Strassmann, J.E. Zhu, Y. and Queller, D.C. (2000) Altruism and social cheating in the social amoeba Dictyostellium dicoideum Nature 408 965-967 [114] Queller, D.C. and Strassmann, J.E. (2002) The many selves of social insects Science 296 311-313 [115]Gell-Mann, M. (1992) Nature Conformable To Herself The Bulletin of the Santa Fe Institute, 7,1, 7-10, (1992) ; (1995/6) Complexity, 1,4. In these publications, Gell-Mann refers to top-level emergence (i.e., the basic constituents are not altered during the emergence process itself) in adaptive complex systems as sufficient mechanism together with the principles of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm to explain Life saying that: ?In my opinion, a great deal of confusion can be avoided, in many different contexts, by making use of the notion of emergence. Some people may ask, "Doesn't life on Earth somehow involve more than physics and chemistry plus the results of chance events in the history of the planet and the course of biological evolution? Doesn't mind, including consciousness or self-awareness, somehow involve more than neurobiology and the accidents of primate evolution? Doesn't there have to be something more?" But they are not taking sufficiently into account the possibility of emergence. Life can perfectly well emerge from the laws of physics plus accidents, and mind, from neurobiology. It is not necessary to assume additional mechanisms or hidden causes. Once emergence is considered, a huge burden is lifted from the inquiring mind. We don't need something more in order to get something more. Although the "reduction" of one level of organization to a previous one ? plus specific circumstances arising from historical accidents ? is possible in principle, it is not by itself an adequate strategy for understanding the world. At each level, new laws emerge that should be studied for themselves; new phenomena appear that should be appreciated and valued at their own level?. He further explains that: ?Examples on Earth of the operation of complex adaptive systems include biological evolution, learning and thinking in animals (including people), the functioning of the immune system in mammals and other vertebrates, the operation of the human scientific enterprise, and the behavior of computers that are built or programmed to evolve strategies?for example by means of neural nets or genetic algorithms. Clearly, complex adaptive systems have a tendency to give rise to other complex adaptive systems?. [116] Gell-Mann, M. (1994) The quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex W. H. Freeman&Company, 48 [117] Wolfram, S. (2002) A New Kind of Science Wolfram Media Inc [118] Langton, C.G.(Editor) (1997) Artificial Life: An Overview (Complex Adaptive Systems) MIT Press [119] Dooley, K. (1997) A Complex Adaptive Systems Model of Organization Change, Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, & Life Science, 1, p. 69-97. [120] Waldrop, M.M. (1992) Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos. Simon and Schuster [121] Mitchell, M. (1998) An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms (Complex Adaptive Systems) MIT Press [122] Holland, J.H. (1995) Hidden Order, Addison-Wesley [123]Berlinski, D. (2001) What Brings a World into Being? Commentary 111, 17-24 [124]Feitelson, D.G. and Treinin, M. (2002) The Blueprint for Life? IEEE Computer, July 34-40. Feitelson's and Treinin's article shows that DNA is a rather incomplete code for life. DNA does not even completely specify a protein. Special peptides, chaperons, are needed to help fold a newly synthesized protein into the correct form. Furthermore, DNA has "multiple readings". A particular transcription is selected based on the mix of the proteins in the cytoplasm ? the current state of a cell. "Thus, DNA is only meaningful in a cellular context in which it can express itself and in which there is an iterative, cyclic relationship between the DNA and the context." [125] Winfree, A.T. (1988) Book review on ?Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology? Bull. Math. Biol. 50 193-207 [126]Abelson, J., Simon, M., Attardi, G. and Chomyn, A. (1995) Mitochondrial Biogenesis and Genetics, Academic Press [127] Holt, I.J.Editor (2003) Genetics of Mitochondrial Diseases Oxford Monographs on Medical Genetics, No. 47 Oxford University Press [128] Knight, R.D., Landweber, L.F., and Yarus, M. (2001) How mitochondria redefine the code J. Mol. Evol. 53 299-313 [129]Burger, G.I. et al (1995) The mitochondrial DNA of the amoeboid protozoon, Acanthamoeba castellanii. Complete sequence, gene content and genome organization J. Mol. Biol. 245:522-537. [130]Gray, M.W. (1992) The endosymbiont hypothesis revisited Mitochondrial Genomes 141:233-357. 49 [131]Wolff, G. et al (1993) Mitochondrial genes in the colorless alga Prototheca wickerhamii resemble plant genes in their exons but fungal genes in their introns. Nucleic Acids Research 21:719-726. ; [132]Wolf, G. et al, (1994) Complete sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of the chlorophyte alga Prototheca wickerhamii. Gene content and genome organization." J. Mol. Biol. 237:74- 86. [133] Landweber, L.F. and Kari, L. (1999) The evolution of cellular computing: natur?s solution to a computational problem, Biosystems 52, 3-13 [134] Kari, L. and Landweber, L.F. (2003) Biocomputing in cilliates. In Cellular Computing, edited by Amos, M. Oxford University Press [135] Makalowski, W. (2003) Not junk after all. Science 300, 1246-7 [136] Lev-Maor, G. et al. (2003) The birth of an alternatively spliced exon: 3? splice-site selection in Alu exons. Science 300, 1288-91 [137] Baruchi, I. and Ben Jacob, E. (2004) Hidden causal manifolds in the space of functional correlations Neuroinformatics (invited) To evaluate the affinities for recorded correlations from N locations the Euclidian distances between every two locations in the Ndimension space of correlations are calculated. The affinities are defined as the correlations normalized by the distances in the space of correlations. Next, the information is projected on low dimension manifolds which contain maximal information about the functional correlations. The space of affinities can be viewed as the analog of a Banach space generalization (to include self reference) of quantum field theory. >From a mathematical perspective, the composons can be viewed as a Banach-Tarski decomposition of the space of correlations into functional sets according to the Axiom of Choice (Appendix D). [138] Oliver, S.G. et al, (2004) Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist. Nature, 427, 247 - 252, [139] Klironomos, J. N.and Hart M.M. (2001) Animal nitrogen swap for plant carbon Nature 410 651-652 Klironomos, J. N. (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature, 217: 67-70. This study showed that soil microorganisms can significantly affect the growth of plants in natural ecosystems. Furthermore, these microorganisms can determine the degree to which plants spread and invade within communities. [140] Roubertoux, P.L. (2003) Mitochondrial DNA modifies cognition in interaction with the nuclear genome and age in mice Nature genetics 35 65-69 50 [141] Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton [142] Bambrook, G. (1996) Language and computers, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh [143] Warnow, T. (1997) Mathematical approaches to comparative linguistics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 6585-6590 [144] Schechter, E. (1997) Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations Academic Press and references therein [145] Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J. and Vaidman, L. (1996) The Meaning of Protective Measurements Found. Phys. 26, 117 [146]Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J. and Vaidman, L. (1993) Meaning of the Wave Function Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616 [147]Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. (1993)The Schr?dinger Wave is Observable After All! in Quantum Control and Measurement, H. Ezawa and Y. Murayama (eds.) Elsevier Publ [148] Aharonov, Y., Massar, S., Popescu, S., Tollaksen, J. and Vaidman, L. (1996) Adiabatic Measurements on Metastable Systems Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 983 [149] Aharonov, Y. and Bohm, D. (1961) Time in the Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Relation for Time and Energy Phys. Rev. 122, 1649 [150]Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J., Popescu, S. and Vaidman, L. (1990) Superpositions of Time Evolutions of a Quantum System and a Quantum Time-Translation Machine Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2965 [151]Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. (1990) Properties of a Quantum System During the Time Interval Between Two Measurements Phys. Rev. A 41, 11 [152] Orzag, M. (2000) Quantum Optics: Including Noise Reduction, Trapped Ions, Quantum Trajectories, and Decoherence [153]Yamamoto, Y. and Imamoglu, A. (1999) Mesoscopic Quantum Optics Wiley-Interscience [154]Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical Review 47 777 [155] 't Hooft, G. (2002) Determinism beneath quantum mechanics. Preprint xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0212095, (2002). Talk presented at 'Quo vadis quantum mechanics' conference, Temple University, Philadelphia. [156] Ball, P. (2003) Physicist proposes deeper layer of reality Nature News 8 January 51 Appendix A: Bacterial Cooperation ? The Origin of Natural Intelligence Under natural conditions, bacteria tend to cooperatively self-organize into hierarchically structured colonies (109-1013 bacteria each), acting much like multi-cellular organisms capable of coordinated gene expressions, regulated cell differentiation, division of tasks, and more. Moreover, the colony behaves as a new organism with its own new self, although the building blocks are living organisms, each with its own self, as illustrated in the figure below. To achieve the proper balance of individuality and cooperation, bacteria communicate using sophisticated communication methods which include a broad repertoire of biochemical agents, such as simple molecules, polymers, peptides, proteins, pheromones, genetic materials, and even ?cassettes? of genetic information like plasmids and viruses. At the same time, each bacterium has equally intricate intracellular communication means (signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity) of generating intrinsic meaning for contextual interpretation of the chemical messages and for formulating its appropriate response. Collective decision-making: When the growth conditions become too stressful, bacteria can transform themselves into inert, enduring spores. Sporulation is executed collectively and begins only after "consultation" and assessment of the colonial stress as a whole by the individual bacteria. Simply put, starved cells emit chemical messages to convey their stress. Each of the other bacteria uses the information for contextual interpretation of the state of the colony relative to its own situation. Accordingly, each of the cells decides to send a message for or against sporulation. After all the members of the colony have sent out their decisions and read all the other messages, if the ?majority vote? is pro-sporulation, sporulation occurs. Thus, sporulation illustrates semantic and pragmatic levels in bacterial communication, i.e., bacteria can transmit meaning-bearing messages to other bacteria to conduct a dialogue for collective decision making (Appendix B). Although spores can endure extreme conditions (e.g., high temperatures, toxic materials, etc.), all they need for germination is to be placed under mild growth conditions. How can they sense the environment so accurately while in almost non living state, surrounded by a very solid membrane, is an unsolved and very little studied enigma. Exchange of genetic information: Another example of bacterial special abilities has to do with the rapid development of bacterial resistance to antibiotic: The emergence of bacterial strains with multiple drug resistance has become one of the major health problems worldwide. Efficient resistance rapidly evolves through the cooperative response of bacteria, utilizing their sophisticated communication capabilities. Bacteria exchange resistance information within the colony and between colonies, thus establishing a ?creative genomic web?. Maintenance and exchange of the resistance genetic information is costly and might be hazardous to the bacteria. Therefore, the information is given and taken on a ?need to know? basis. In other words, the bacteria prepare, send and accept the genetic message when the information is relevant to their existence. 52 One of the tools for genetic communication is via direct physical transfer of conjugal plasmids. These bacterial mating events, that can also include inter-colonial and even interspecies conjugations, follow chemical courtship played by the potential partners. Naively presented, bacteria with valuable information (say, resistance to antibiotic) emit chemical signals to announce this fact. Bacteria in need of that information, upon receiving the signal, emit pheromone-like peptides to declare their willingness to mate. Sometimes, the decision to mate is followed by an exchange of competence factors (peptides). This preconjugation communication modifies the membrane of the partner cell into a penetrable state needed for conjugation, allowing the exchange of genetic information. Hierarchical organization of vortices: Some bacteria cope with hazards by generating module structures - vortices, which then become building blocks used to construct the colony as a higher entity (Fig 2). To maintain the integrity of the module while it serves as a higherorder building block of the colony requires an advanced level of communication. Messages must be passed to inform each cell in the vortex that it is now playing a more complex role, being a member of the specific module and the colony as a whole, so it can adjust its behavior accordingly. Once the vortex is recognized as a possible spatial structure, it becomes easy to understand that vortices can be used as subunits in a more complex colonial structure for elevated colonial plasticity. In Fig 3, we demonstrate how the P. vortex bacteria utilize their cooperative, complexity-based plasticity to alter the colony structure to cope with antibiotic stress, making use of some simple yet elegant solutions. The bacteria simply increase cooperation (by intensifying both attractive and repulsive chemical signaling), leading to larger vortices (due to stronger attraction) that move faster away from the antibiotic stress (due to stronger repulsion by those left behind). Moreover, once they?ve encountered the antibiotic, the bacteria seem to generate a collective memory so that in the next encounter they can respond even more efficiently. Fig. A1: Hierarchical colonial organization: Patterns formed during colonial development of the swarming and lubricating Paenibacillus vortex bacteria. (Left) The vortices (modules) are the leading dots seen on a macro-scale (~10cm2). The picture shows part of a circular colony composed of about 1012 bacteria - ~ the number of cells of our immune system, ten times the number of neurons in the brain and hundred times the human population on earth. Each vortex is composed of many cells that swarm collectively around their 53 common center. These vortices vary in size from tens to millions of bacteria, according to their location in the colony and the growth conditions. The vortex shown on the right (magnification x500, hence each bar is a single bacterium) is a relatively newly formed one. After formation, the cells in the vortex replicate, the vortex expands in size and moves outward as a unit, leaving behind a trail of motile but usually non replicating cells ? the vortex tail. The vortices dynamics is quite complicated and includes attraction, repulsion, merging and splitting of vortices. Yet, from this complex, seemingly chaotic movement, a colony with complex but nonarbitrary organization develops (left). To maintain the integrity of the vortex while it serves as a higher-order building block of the colony requires an advanced level of communication. Messages must be passed to inform each cell in the vortex that it is now playing a more complex role, being a member of the specific vortex and the colony as a whole, so it can adjust its behavior accordingly. New vortices emerge in the trail behind a vortex following initiation signals from the parent vortex. The entire process proceeds as a continuous dialogue: a vortex grows and moves, producing a trail of bacteria and being pushed forward by the very same bacteria behind. At some point the process stalls, and this is the signal for the generation of a new vortex behind the original one, that leaves home (the trail) as a new entity which serves a living building block of the colony as a whole. Fig. A2: Collective memory and learning: Self-organization of the P.vortex bacteria in the presence of non-lethal levels of antibiotic added to the substrate. In the picture shown, bacteria were exposed to antibiotic before the colonial developments. Note that it resulted in a more organized pattern (in comparison with Fig 1. From multi-cellularity to sociality: In fact, bacteria can go a step higher; once an entire colony becomes a new multi-cellular being with its own identity, colonies functioning as organisms cooperate as building blocks of even more complex organizations of bacterial communities or societies, such as species-rich biofilms. In this situation, cells should be able to identify their own self, both within the context of being part of a specific colony-self and part of a higher entity - a multi-colonial community to which their colony belongs. Hence, to maintain social cooperation in such societies with species diversity, the bacteria need ?multilingual? skills for the identification and contextual interpretation of messages received from colony members and from other colonies of the same species and of other species, and to have the necessary means to sustain the highest level of dialogue within the ?chattering? of the surrounding crowed. Incomprehensible complexity: For perspective, the oral cavity, for example, hosts a large assortment of unicellular prokaryotic and various eukaryotic microorganisms. Current estimates suggest that sub-gingival plaque contains 20 genera of bacteria representing 54 hundreds of different species, each with its own colony of ~1010 bacteria, i.e., together ~thousand times the human population on earth. Thus, the level of complexity of such microbial system far exceeds that of the computer networks, electric networks, transportation and all other man-made networks combined. Yet bacteria of all those colonies communicate for tropism in shared tasks, coordinated activities and exchange of relevant genetic bacterial information using biochemical communication of meaning-bearing, semantic messages. The current usage of ?language? with respect to intra- and inter-bacteria communication is mainly in the sense that one would use in, for example, ?computer language? or ?language of algebra?. Namely, it refers to structural aspects of communication, corresponding to the structural (lexical and syntactic) linguistic motifs. Higher linguistic levels - assigning contextual meaning to words and sentences (semantic) and conducting meaningful dialogue (pragmatic) - are typically associated with cognitive abilities and intelligence of human. Hence, currently one might accept their existence in the ?language of dolphins? but regard them as well beyond the realm of bacterial communication abilities. We propose that this notion should be reconsidered. Appendix B: Clues and Percepts Drawn from Human Linguistics Two independent discoveries the 1950?s latter bridged linguistics and genetics: Chomsky?s proposed universal grammar of human languages [141] and the discovery of the structural code of the DNA. The first suggested universal structural motifs and combinatorial principles (syntactic rules) at the core of all natural languages, and the other provided analogous universals for the genetic code of all living organisms. A generation later, these paradigms continue to cross-pollinate these two fields. For example, Neo-Darwinian and population genetics perspectives as well as phylogenetic methods are now used for the understanding the structure, learning, and evolution of human languages. Similarly, Chomsky?s meaningindependent syntactic grammar view combined with computational linguistic methods are widely used in biology, especially in bioinformatics and structural biology but increasingly in biosystemics and even ecology. The focus has been on the formal, syntactic structural levels, which are also applicable to ?machine languages?: Lexical ? formation of words from their components (e.g., characters and phonemes); Syntactic ? organization of phrases and sentences in accordance with wellspecified grammatical rules [142,143]. Linguistics also deals with a higher-level framework, the semantics of human language. Semantics is connected to contextual interpretation, to the assignment of context-dependent meaning to words, sentences and paragraphs. For example, one is often able to capture the meaning of a text only after reading it several times. At each such iteration, words, sentences and paragraphs may assume different meanings in the reader's mind; iteration is necessary, since there is a hierarchical organization of contextual meaning. Namely, each word contributes to the generation of the meaning of the entire sentence it is part of, and at the same time the generated whole meaning of the sentence can change the meaning of each of the words it is composed of. By the same token, the meanings of all sentences in a paragraph are co-generated along with the created meaning of the paragraph as a whole, and so on, for all levels. 55 Readers have semantic plasticity, i.e., a reader is free to assign individualistic contextual and causal meanings to the same text, according to background knowledge, expectations, or purpose; this is accomplished using combined analytical and synthetic skills. Beyond this, some linguists identify the conduction of a dialogue among converser using shared semantic meaning as pragmatics. The group usage of a dialogue can vary from activity coordination through collective decision-making to the emergence of a new group self. To sustain such cognitive abilities might require analogous iterative processes of self-organization based generation of composons of meaning within the brain which will be discussed elsewhere Drawing upon human linguistics with regard to bacteria, semantics would imply contextual interpretation of chemical messages, i.e., each bacterium has some freedom (plasticity) to assign meaning according to its own specific, internal and external, contextual state. For that, a chemical message is required to initiate an intra-cellular response that involves internal restructuring - self-organization of the intracellular gel and/or the genenetwork or even the genome itself. To sustain a dialogue based on semantic messages, the bacteria should have a common pre-existing knowledge (collective memory) and abilities to collectively generate new knowledge that is transferable upon replication. Thus, the ability to conduct a dialogue implies that there exist some mechanisms of collective gene expression, analogous to that of cell differentiation during embryonic development of multi-cellular organisms, in which mitochondria might play an important role. Appendix C: G?del?s Code and the Axiom of Choice Hilbert?s second problem G?del?s theorems provided an answer to the second of the 23 problems posed by Hilbert. 2. Can it be proven that the axioms of logic are consistent? G?del?s theorems say that the answer to Hilbert?s second question is negative. For that he has invented the following three steps code: 1. G?del assigned a number to each logical symbol, e.g., Not ? 1 Or ? 2 If then ? 3 ? ? 4 2. He assigned prime numbers to variables, e.g., x ? 11 y ? 13 3. He assigned a number to any statement according to the following example: ?There is a number not equal to zero?. In logic symbols ( ? x ) ( x ? = 0 ) In G?del?s numbers 8 4 11 9 8 11 1 5 6 9 The statement?s number is 28.34.511.79.118.1311.171.195.236.299 56 Note that it is a product of the sequence of prime numbers, each to the power of the corresponding G?del?s number. This coding enables one-to-one mapping between statements and the whole numbers. Hilbert?s first problem and the Axiom of Choice G?del also studied the first of the 23 essential problems posed by Hilbert. 1.a Is there a transfinite number between that of a denumerable set and the numbers of the continuum? 1.b Can the continuum of numbers be considered a well ordered set? In 1940, G?del proved that a positive answer to 1.a is consistent with the axioms of von Neumann-Bernays-G?del set theory. However, in 1963, Cohen demonstrated that it is inconsistent with the Zermelo-Frankel set theory. Thus, the answer is undecidable ? it depends on the particular set theory assumed. The second question is related to an important and fundamental axiom in set sometimes called Zermelo's Axiom of Choice. It was formulated by Zermelo in 1904 and states that, given any set of mutually exclusive nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets. The axiom of choice can be demonstrated to be independent of all other axioms in set theory. So the answer to 1.b is also undecidable. The popular version of the Axiom of Choice is that [144]: Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a choice function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S. There is an ongoing controversy over how to interpret the words "choose" and "exists" in the axiom: If we follow the constructivists, and "exists" means ?to find," then the axiom is false, since we cannot find a choice function for the nonempty subsets of the real numbers. However, most mathematicians give "exists" a much weaker meaning, and they consider the Axiom to be true: To define f(S), just arbitrarily "pick any member" of S. In effect, when we accept the Axiom of Choice, this means we are agreeing to the convention that we shall permit ourselves to use a choice function f in proofs, as though it "exists" in some sense, even though we cannot give an explicit example of it or an explicit algorithm for it. The choice function merely exists in the mental universe of mathematics. Many different mathematical universes are possible. When we accept or reject the Axiom of Choice, we are specifying which universe we shall work in. As was shown by G?del and Cohen, both possibilities are feasible ? i.e., neither accepting nor rejecting AC yields a contradiction. The Axiom of Choice implies the existence of some conclusions which seem to be counterintuitive or to contradict "ordinary" experience. One example is the Banach-Tarski Decomposition, in which the Axiom of Choice is assumed to prove that it is possible to take the 3-dimensional closed unit ball, 57 B = {(x,y,z) ? R3 : x2 + y2 + z2 < 1} and partition it into finitely many pieces, and move those pieces in rigid motions (i.e., rotations and translations, with pieces permitted to move through one another) and reassemble them to form two copies of B. At first glance, the Banach-Tarski Decomposition seems to contradict some of our intuition about physics ? e.g., the Law of Mass Conservation from classical Newtonian physics. Consequently, the Decomposition is often called the Banach-Tarski Paradox. But actually, it only yields a complication, not a contradiction. If we assume a uniform density, only a set with a defined volume can have a defined mass. The notion of "volume" can be defined for many subsets of R3, and beginners might expect the notion to apply to all subsets of R3, but it does not. More precisely, Lebesgue measure is defined on some subsets of R3, but it cannot be extended to all subsets of R3 in a fashion that preserves two of its most important properties: the measure of the union of two disjoint sets is the sum of their measures, and measure is unchanged under translation and rotation. Thus, the Banach-Tarski Paradox does not violate the Law of Conservation of Mass; it merely tells us that the notion of "volume" is more complicated than we might have expected. We emphasize that the sets in the Banach-Tarski Decomposition cannot be described explicitly; we are merely able to prove their existence, like that of a choice function. One or more of the sets in the decomposition must be Lebesgue unmeasurable; thus a corollary of the Banach-Tarski Theorem is the fact that there exist sets that are not Lebesgue measurable. The idea we lean toward is that in the space of affinities the composons represent similar decomposition but of information which is the extensive functional in this space which corresponds to the volume in the system real space. Appendix D: Description of Turing?s Conceptual Machinery To support our view of the limits of Artificial Intelligence or Machines Intelligence, we present here a relatively detailed description of Turing?s Universal Machine. Turing proved that any discrete, finite state with fixed in time finite set of instructions can be mapped onto his conceptual machine. Note that there can be self-reference in the execution of the instructions but not in their logical structure. The process of computation was graphically depicted in Turing's paper when he asked the reader to consider a device that can read and write simple symbols on a paper tape that is divided into squares. The "reading/writing head" can move in either direction along the tape, one square at a time, and a control unit that directs the actions of the head can interpret simple instructions about reading and writing symbols in squares. The single square that is "scanned" or "read" at each stage is known as the Active Square. Imagine that new sections can be added at either end of the existing tape, so it is potentially infinite. Suppose the symbols are "X" and "O". Suppose that the device can erase either symbol when it reads it in the Active Square and replace it with the other symbol (i.e., erase an X and replace it with an O, and vice versa). The device also has the ability to move left or right, one square at a time, according to instructions interpreted by the control unit. The instructions cause a symbol to be erased, written, or left the same, depending on which symbol is read. 58 Any number of games can be constructed using these rules, but they would not all necessarily be meaningful. One of the first things Turing demonstrated was that some of the games constructed under these rules can be very sophisticated, considering how crude and automaton-like the primitive operations seem to be. The following example illustrates how this game can be used to perform a simple calculation. The rules of the game to be played by this Turing machine are simple: Given a starting position in the form of a section of tape with some Xs and Os on it, and a starting square indicated, the device is to perform the actions dictated by a list of instructions and follows the succeeding instructions one at a time until it reaches an instruction that forces it to stop. (If there is no explicit instruction in the table of instructions for a particular tape configuration, there is nothing that the machine can do when it reaches that configuration, so it has to stop.) Each instruction specifies a particular action to be performed if there is a certain symbol on the active square at the time it is read. There are four different actions; they are the only legal moves of this game. They are: Replace O with X. Replace X with O. Go one square to the right. Go one square to the left. An example of an instruction is: "If there is an X on the active square replace it with O." This instruction causes the machine to perform the second action listed above. In order to create a "game," we need to make a list that specifies the number of the instruction that is being followed at every step as well as the number of the instruction that is to be followed next. That is like saying "The machine is now following (for example) instruction seven, and the instruction to be followed next is (for example) instruction eight" (as is illustrated in appendix 3). Here is a series of instructions, given in coded form and the more English-like translation. Taken together, these instructions constitute an "instruction table" or a "program" that tells a Turing machine how to play a certain kind off game: 1XO2 (Instruction #1:if an X is on the active square, replace it with O, then execute instruction #2.) 2OR3 (Instruction #2: if an O is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #3.) 3XR3 (Instruction #3: if an X is on the active square, go right one square execute instruction #3; 3OR4 but if an O is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #4.) 4XR4 (Instruction #4: if an X is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #4; 4OX5 but if an O is on the active square, replace it with X and then execute instruction #5.) 5XR5 (Instruction #5: if an X is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #5; 5OX6 but if an O is on the active square, replace it with X and then execute instruction #6.) 6XL6 (Instruction #6: if an X is on the active square, go left one square and then execute instruction #6 6OL7 but if an O is on the active square, go left one square and then execute instruction #7.) 7XL8 (Instruction #7: if an X is on the active square, go left one square and then execute instruction #8.) 8XL8 (Instruction #8: if an X is on the active square, go left one square and then execute instruction #8; 8OR1 but if an O is on the active square, go right one square and then execute instruction #1.) Note that if there is an O on the active square in instruction #1 or #7, or if there is an X on the active square in instruction #2, the machine will stop. In order to play the game (run the program) specified by the list of instructions, one more thing must be provided: a starting tape configuration. For our example, let us consider a tape with two Xs on it, bounded on both sides by an infinite string of Os. The changing states of a single tape are depicted here as a series of tape segments, one above the other. The Active 59 Square for each is denoted by a capital X or O. When the machine is started it will try to execute the first available instruction, instruction #1. The following series of actions will then occur Instruction Tape What the Machine Does #1 ...ooXxooooooo... One (of two) Xs is erased. #2 ...ooOxooooooo... #3 ...oooXooooooo... Tape is scanned to the right #3 ...oooxOoooooo... #4 ...oooxoOooooo... #5 ...oooxoXooooo... Two Xs are written. #5 ...oooxoxOoooo... #6 ...oooxoxXoooo... #6 ...oooxoXxoooo... Scanner returns to the other original X #6 ...oooxOxxoooo... #7 ...oooXoxxoooo... #8 ...ooOxoxxoooo... Scanner moves to the right and execute #1 #1 ...oooXoxxoooo... #2 ...oooOoxxoooo... #3 ...ooooOxxoooo... Scanner moves to the right of the two Xs that were written earlier. #4 ...oooooXxoooo... #4 ...oooooxXoooo... #4 ...oooooxxOooo... #5 ...oooooxxXooo... Two more Xs are written. #5 ...oooooxxxOoo... #6 ...oooooxxxXoo... #6 ...oooooxxXxoo... Scanner looks for any more original Xs #6 ...oooooxXxxoo... #6 ...oooooXxxxoo... #6 ...ooooOxxxxoo... #7 ...oooOoxxxxoo... The machine stops because there is no instruction for #7 if O is being scanned. This game may seem rather mechanical. The fact that it is mechanical was one of the points Turing was trying to make. If you look at the starting position, note that there are two adjacent Xs. Then look at the final position and note that there are four Xs. If you were to use the same instructions, but start with a tape that had five Xs, you would wind up with ten Xs. This list of instructions is the specification for a calculating procedure that can double the input and display the output. It can, in fact, be done by a machine. (This Appendix is edited with author?s permission from ?Tools for Thoughts: The People and Ideas of the Next Computer Revolution? by Howard Rheingold 1985) Appendix E: Non-Destructive Quantum Measurements Protective Quantum Measurements and Hardy?s Paradox The debate about the existence of the choice function in the Axiom of choices is in the same spirit as the debated questions about the reality of the wave function and paradoxes connected with quantum entanglement like the one proposed by Hardy (see references in the extract below). It has been proven by Aharonov and his collaborators[145-148 ]that it is possible in principle to perform quantum measurements to extract information beyond 60 quantum uncertainty while the wave function is protected (for the case of eigenstate with discrete spectrum of eigenvalue they refer to it as protective measurements, and for continuous spectrum as weak measurements). The protective, weak and non-demolition (described latter) quantum measurements provide different methods for non-destructive measurements of quantum systems ? there is no destruction of the quantum state of the system due to externally imposed measurement. These kinds of measurements enable the observations of unexpected quantum phenomena. For example, the thought experiment proposed in Hardy?s paradox can be tested as illustrated in [Quantum Physics, abstract quantph/ 0104062]. 61 As with a multiple-options state for organism, Hardy?s paradox is usually assumed to be resolved on the grounds that the thought experiment doesn't correspond to any possible real experiment and is therefore meaningless. The only way to find out what really happens to the particles in the experiment would be to measure their routes, rather than simply inferring them from the final result. But, as soon as a particle detector is placed in any of the paths, standard strong quantum measurement will cause the collapse of its wave function and wash out any possible future interference between the electron and positron states. However, Hardy?s thought experiment can be converted into a real one if the assumed strong quantum measurement is replaced with weak measurements. The idea is to exploit quantum uncertainty by using a quantum detector which is weakly coupled to the measured system to the degree that it reads eigenvalues smaller than the expected quantum uncertainty. It was proved that by doing so quantum superposition of states can be preserved (i.e., there is no collapse of the wave function). Clearly, a single weak measurement can not, on its own, provide any meaningful information. However, it was proved theoretically that, when repeated many times, the average of these measurements approximates to the true eigenvalue that would be obtained by a single strong measurement involving a collapse of the wave function [145-148].. Therefore, when weak measurements are assumed, not only does the original paradox remain, but an additional difficulty arises. The theoretical investigations imply that two pairs of electronpositron can coexist in the apparatus at the same time: A detector located in the part of the interferometer in which the particle trajectories are non-overlapping can yield a final reading of -1, i.e., a "negative presence" of a pair of particles! To quote Aharonov: The -1 result illustrates that there is a way to carry out experiments on the counter-intuitive predictions of quantum theory without destroying all the interesting results. A single quantum particle could have measurable effects on physical systems in two places at once, for instance. Moreover, when you get a good look inside, quantum theory is even more bizarre than we thought. Quantum particles can assume far more complex identities than simply being in two places at once: pairs of particles are fundamentally different from single particles and they can assume a negative presence. And the fact that weak measurements transform the paradox from a mere technicality into an unavoidable truth suggests that they could provide a springboard for new understanding of quantum mechanics. There are extraordinary things within ordinary quantum mechanics; the negative presence result might be just the tip of the iceberg: every paradox in quantum theory may simply be a manifestation of other strange behaviors of quantum objects that we have not yet detected - or even thought of. 62 The Quantum Time-Translation Machine Another unexpected quantum reality about the concept of time [149], can be viewed as being metaphorically related to the organism?s internal model of itself, which acts on different time scales for educated decision-making. We refer to the Aharonov, Anandan, Popescue and Vaidman (AAPV) Quantum Time-Translation Machine [150,151]: 63 Quantum Non-Demolition Measurements Another approach to measure the eigenvalue of a specific observable without demolition of the quantum state of the observed system is referred to as QND measurements used mainly in quantum optics [152,153]. The idea can be traced back to the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen paradox [154], presented in their 1935 paper entitled "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?? They have shown that, according to quantum mechanics, if two systems in a combined state (e.g., two half-spin particles in a combined-spin state) are at a large distance from each other, a measurement of the state of one system can provide information about that of the other one. The conceptual idea of the QND measurements is to first prepare the observed system and a quantum detector (e.g., Polarized light) in an entangled state and then to extract information about the observed system by using ordinary destructive measurement on the quantum detector. This way, the state of the detector is demolished but that of the system of interest is protected. In this sense, the newly developed biofluoremetry method for studying the intracellular spatio-temporal organization and functional correlations is actually a version of QND measurements and not just an analogy. Proceeding with the same metaphor, bacterial colonies enable to perform new real experiments in analogy with Aharonov?s ?back from the future? notion about the backward propagation of the wave function. For example, several colonies taken from the same culture in a stationary phase, or even better, from spores, can be grown at successive intervals of time while exposed to the same constraints. The new concept is to let, for example, bacteria taken from the future (the older colonies) to communicate with colonies at the present and compare their consequent development with those who were not exposed to their own future. Albeit simple, the detailed setup and interpretations of the experiments should be done keeping in mind that (as we have shown), even similar colonies grown at the same time develop distinguishable self-identities. To Be is to Change 64 The picture of the decomposable mixed state of multiple options is also metaphorically analogous to t?Hooft?s Universe [155,156], composed of underlying Be-able and Changeable non-commuting observables at the Planck length scales (10-35meter). His motivation was the paradox posed by the in principle contradiction of simulating backward in time a unified theory composed of gravity and quantum mechanics based on the current Copenhagen interpretation: There is no deeper reality, hidden variables do not exist and the world is simply probabilistic. It holds that we are not ignorant about quantum objects; it's just that there is nothing further to be known. This is in contradiction with Einstein?s picture later named ?hidden variables?. The EPR paradox mentioned earlier was an attempt to illustrate that, unless the existence of unknown and non-measurable variables is assumed, one runs into contradiction with our intuitive perception of reality. Simply phrased, according to the ?hidden variable? picture, quantum uncertainty reflects some underlying deterministic reality that in principle can be measured. Following the EPR paradox, Bell proposed a specific inequality that, if measured, can distinguish between the Copenhagen and hidden variables interpretations of quantum mechanics. The consequent experiments were in agreement with the Copenhagen interpretation. In 2002, t?Hooft presented a new approach to the problem that most perceived as being resolved. His answer to the Copenhagen interpretation is [155]: 65 To solve the paradox, he proposed a third approach based on the idea that, on the Planckian level, reality might be essentially different from that on the larger scales of interest. The idea is to define equivalence classes of states. Two states are defined as equivalent if and only if they evolve in the near future to the same state. We emphasize that this is the analogy (in reverse) to our picture of ?harnessing the past to free the future? during internal self-organization of organisms. Metaphorically, for similar reasons (in reverse) why loss of information leads to the quantum uncertainty for an external observer, the storage of past information by the organism affords it an internal state of multiple options inaccessible to an external observer. To take into consideration the crucial role of information loss, t?Hooft proposes that two kinds of observables exist on the Planckian scale. The ones that describe the equivalent classes are the be-able ones: With regard to organisms, the corresponding observables are those connected with information registered in the structural organization or statistically averaged dynamics (e.g., gene-expression measurements from several organisms under the same conditions). According to t?Hooft all other operators are the change-able ones that do not commute with the be-able operators. So that, In this picture, reality on the very fundamental level is associated with information rather than matter: 66 This picture of nature is metaphorically similar to the picture we propose for organisms ? a balance between intrinsic and extrinsic flow of information. The essential difference is that organisms are self-organizing open system that can store information, including about their self. Appendix F: Turing?s Child Machine In the 1950?s the three interchangeable terms ?Machine Intelligence?, ?Artificial Intelligence? and ?Machine learning? referred to the causal (goal) of learning about humans by building machines to exhibit behavior which, if performed by humans, would be assumed to involve the use of intelligence. In the next five decades, ?Machine Intelligence? and its associated terms evolved away from their original causal meanings. These terms are now primarily associated with particular methodologies for attempting to achieve the goal of getting computers to automatically solve problems. Thus, the term ?artificial intelligence? is associated today primarily with the efforts to design and utilize computers to solve problems using methods that rely on knowledge, logic, and various analytical and mathematical methods. Only in some spin-off branches of research, such as genetic programming and evolvable hardware, does Turing?s term still communicate the broad goal of getting computers to automatically solve problems in a human-like or even broader biological-like manners. In his 1948 paper, Turing identified three strategies by which human-competitive machine intelligence might be achieved. The first is a logic-driven search which is the causal reason (described earlier) that led Turing to develop the idea of his conceptual machine, i.e., to learn about the foundations of mathematics and logics. The second reason for generating machine intelligence is what he called a ?cultural search? in which previously acquired knowledge is accumulated, stored in libraries, and used in problem solving a - the approach taken by modern knowledge-based expert systems. These first two approaches of Turing?s have been pursued over the past 50 years by the vast majority of researchers using the methodologies that are today primarily associated with the term ?artificial intelligence.? 67 Turing also identified a third approach to machine intelligence in his 1948 paper, saying: ?There is the genetical or evolutionary search by which a combination of genes is looked for, the criterion being the survival value.? Note that this remarkable realization preceded the discovery of the DNA and modern genetics. So Turing could not have specified in 1948 how to conduct the ?genetical or evolutionary search? for solutions to problems and could not mention concepts like population genetics and recombination. However, he did point out in his 1950 paper that: We cannot expect to find a good child-machine at the first attempt. One must experiment with teaching one such machine and see how well it learns. One can then try another and see if it is better or worse. There is an obvious connection between this process and evolution, by the identifications ?Structure of the child machine = Hereditary material?; ?Changes of the child machine = Mutations?; ?Natural selection = Judgment of the experimenter?. Thus, Turing correctly perceived in 1948 and 1950 that machine intelligence can only be achieved by an evolutionary process in which a description of a computer hardware and software (the hereditary material) undergoes progressive modification (mutation) under the guidance of natural selection (i.e., selective pressure in the form of what is now usually called ?fitness?). The measurement of fitness in modern-day genetics and evolutionary computation is usually performed by automated means, as opposed to a human passing judgment on each individual candidate, as suggested by Turing. From this perspective, Turing?s vision is actually closer to our view about organisms? intelligence, provided that the external ?teacher? is replaced by an inner one, and the organism has freedom of response to the external information gathered, rather than forced to follow specific instructions. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Nov 27 04:45:25 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:45:25 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Living wage thread In-Reply-To: <20041126203934.63206.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041126203934.63206.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41A80665.20402@solution-consulting.com> This is fairly easy to research. Type "living wage consequences" into a search engine. Here is a simple 'compare and contrast' activity. One side is from UMass Amherst, supporting living wages. But note carefully, these studies, as far as I can tell, are from a theoretical POV. Exempli gratia: The author of their Santa Monica paper admits that his projections are theoretical. http://www.umass.edu/peri/programs/labormarkets/labormarkets.htm The other side is from a Cato paper, referencing 80 studies showing that the Federal Minimum Wage laws and subsequent Living Wage laws actually increases unemployment among those they are designed to help. Every time. These are empirical studies. Cato points out the fallacies of the pro-living wage arguments, and an intelligent discussion of the topic is obligated to address those. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-493es.html The Cato Institute study says: "The main beneficiaries of the living wage are public-sector unionized employees because of the reduced incentives for local governments to contract out work. Instead of exploiting grievances of the marginally employed against 'greedy' employers, advocates for the poor should focus their energies on building the skills of the poor." Another e.g.from Thomas Sowell: People in minimum wage jobs do not stay at the minimum wage permanently. Their pay increases as they accumulate experience and develop skills. It increases an average of 30 percent in just their first year of employment, according to the Cato Institute study . Other studies show that low-income people become average-income people in a few years and high-income people later in life. - http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20031105.shtml Sowell obviously has some data to suggest that minimum wage jobs are 'starter jobs' (4/5 in a minimum wage job are single young people in their first job.) Now you may dislike Sowell intensely, but he is a genuine economist, author of textbooks, and a researcher, so we shouldn't reject him because of bias and prejudice against the libertarian POV. We ought to examine the studies he bases his statements on, just as any fair-minded person seeking to understand complex group behavior. Before we argue, we can simply look at the research. Anyone who plows through research will find ammunition on both sides. (As Robert Rosenthal showed, researchers get what they want to get, especially in social science.) The best studies are empirical, not theoretical, and they appear to support my POV. My discussions with economists lends support to my notion that these findings are well known. That they are not welcome facts is also well known. Lynn Another cato-like source FYI: http://www.epionline.org/ Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage "The costs and benefits arising from minimum wages are subject to considerable disagreement among economists , though the consensus among economics textbooks is that minimum wage laws should be avoided whenever possible as the costs exceed the benefits. " follow the discussion below this quote. Michael Christopher wrote: >>>Living wage laws -- government imposed -- reduce >>> >>> >the number of jobs to low income people, hurting the >ones you pretend to help. This is well known.<< > >--I think it's assumed, not "well known". What kind of >sample was studied in making that determination? > > > >>>More people out of work. More people in misery. >>> >>> >Sounds like a typical left wing bit of nonsense.<< > >--Countered by a typical bit of right wing nonsense, >apparently. A lot of people let ideology govern their >thinking, rather than an actual analysis of what >happens when variables are changed in a society. It >requires humility, because in any multi-variable >system, changing one variable can unexpectedly affect >others, and it's all experimental. There is no >shortage of people with opinions, willing to impose >their opinions on the entire system, and the fallout >from such experimentation can be tragic. Everyone is >SO certain their hypothesis is correct, and so >unwilling to step down to the street level to see the >effects of their decisions up close. > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! >http://my.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Sat Nov 27 05:42:21 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:42:21 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia Message-ID: In a message dated 11/26/2004 8:00:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, shovland at mindspring.com writes: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Disinfopedia This looks like a very useful site. But there's a conundrum. The Center For Media and Democracy is a special interest group with a prejudged and premeditated point of view. It's also a public relations machine. A successful one. I've met with its head. He does not want to hear what Michael Lockhart identified as hypotheses. He was among those who did not want to hear about black-on-black genocide in the 1980s, when I tried to get him to focus on it. That genocide escalated in the 1990s. It was the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. The Center for Media & Democracy and its allies ruled out any of the coverage that could have stopped the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in its early stages and could have saved close to a million lives. The Center has very strong allies in the media and those allies also insisted that giving attention to the Hutus and Tutsis was politically unacceptable. The folks at The Center for Media and Democracy want only to hear voices that agree with their point of view--the "progressive" point of view, a set of social cliches policed by ostracism. Granted that we all want to hear our point of view or what supports it, once we get away from corporations and government agencies--whose media manipulations should be made as transparent as possible--shouldn't we also have watchdogs watching those who claim to be watchers? Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 05:42:03 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:42:03 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? Message-ID: <01C4D400.C51CE430.shovland@mindspring.com> Extending the software analogy, an accounts payable system does not mutate into accounts receivable. It becomes a better payables system as a result of enhancements. Then one wonders, what is the genetic equivalent of a complete redesign and rewrite of a computer application? One reason the Unix system is so good is that many of its utilities have been rewritten several times, each from a better basis of understanding. What do you get when you apply this to organisms? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Val Geist [SMTP:kendulf at shaw.ca] Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 8:39 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] is evolutionary change stockpiled? << File: ATT00023.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: ATT00024.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: ATT00025.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 05:43:58 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Living wage thread Message-ID: <01C4D401.09DD4B50.shovland@mindspring.com> My street level knowledge says that some of these studies are not very scientific. Worse, they are pseudoscience or mercenary science. In the real world there are plenty of people who work their whole lives for low wages and never move up. They live all around me in the Mission District. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 8:45 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Living wage thread This is fairly easy to research. Type "living wage consequences" into a search engine. Here is a simple 'compare and contrast' activity. One side is from UMass Amherst, supporting living wages. But note carefully, these studies, as far as I can tell, are from a theoretical POV. Exempli gratia: The author of their Santa Monica paper admits that his projections are theoretical. http://www.umass.edu/peri/programs/labormarkets/labormarkets.htm The other side is from a Cato paper, referencing 80 studies showing that the Federal Minimum Wage laws and subsequent Living Wage laws actually increases unemployment among those they are designed to help. Every time. These are empirical studies. Cato points out the fallacies of the pro-living wage arguments, and an intelligent discussion of the topic is obligated to address those. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-493es.html The Cato Institute study says: "The main beneficiaries of the living wage are public-sector unionized employees because of the reduced incentives for local governments to contract out work. Instead of exploiting grievances of the marginally employed against 'greedy' employers, advocates for the poor should focus their energies on building the skills of the poor." Another e.g.from Thomas Sowell: People in minimum wage jobs do not stay at the minimum wage permanently. Their pay increases as they accumulate experience and develop skills. It increases an average of 30 percent in just their first year of employment, according to the Cato Institute study . Other studies show that low-income people become average-income people in a few years and high-income people later in life. - http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20031105.shtml Sowell obviously has some data to suggest that minimum wage jobs are 'starter jobs' (4/5 in a minimum wage job are single young people in their first job.) Now you may dislike Sowell intensely, but he is a genuine economist, author of textbooks, and a researcher, so we shouldn't reject him because of bias and prejudice against the libertarian POV. We ought to examine the studies he bases his statements on, just as any fair-minded person seeking to understand complex group behavior. Before we argue, we can simply look at the research. Anyone who plows through research will find ammunition on both sides. (As Robert Rosenthal showed, researchers get what they want to get, especially in social science.) The best studies are empirical, not theoretical, and they appear to support my POV. My discussions with economists lends support to my notion that these findings are well known. That they are not welcome facts is also well known. Lynn Another cato-like source FYI: http://www.epionline.org/ Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage "The costs and benefits arising from minimum wages are subject to considerable disagreement among economists , though the consensus among economics textbooks is that minimum wage laws should be avoided whenever possible as the costs exceed the benefits. " follow the discussion below this quote. Michael Christopher wrote: >>>Living wage laws -- government imposed -- reduce >>> >>> >the number of jobs to low income people, hurting the >ones you pretend to help. This is well known.<< > >--I think it's assumed, not "well known". What kind of >sample was studied in making that determination? > > > >>>More people out of work. More people in misery. >>> >>> >Sounds like a typical left wing bit of nonsense.<< > >--Countered by a typical bit of right wing nonsense, >apparently. A lot of people let ideology govern their >thinking, rather than an actual analysis of what >happens when variables are changed in a society. It >requires humility, because in any multi-variable >system, changing one variable can unexpectedly affect >others, and it's all experimental. There is no >shortage of people with opinions, willing to impose >their opinions on the entire system, and the fallout >from such experimentation can be tragic. Everyone is >SO certain their hypothesis is correct, and so >unwilling to step down to the street level to see the >effects of their decisions up close. > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! >http://my.yahoo.com > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00026.html >> << File: ATT00027.txt >> From HowlBloom at aol.com Sat Nov 27 06:23:09 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:23:09 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] back to the plantation Message-ID: In a message dated 11/24/2004 7:41:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, ff10 at txstate.edu writes: HB, if you need any research done, I am pretty much free until Saturday...... Hope you are well.... Ive been quite busy for about two months now.... but during the holidays it slows down for us..... hb: here's a question still puzzling me for reinventing capitalism. Is my hypothesis about the rise of the plantation system correct? Did monocropping and the obsession with genetic engineering--or what was called "breeding" at the time--begin with the tree plantations Henry VIII needed to build the ships he'd helped invent--Baltic Sea-like cog ships, big-bellied ocean-capable cargo ships that could be outfitted with dozens of canons and could make the long, thin, one-cannon war galleys battling in the Mediterranean obsolete? Had England run low on wood when Henry came up with his naval innovation? When Henry tossed the church out of the third of England that the Vatican controlled, when he gave that land to his ambitious, modern friends, and when he turned these enterpreneurial masters of new estates into a squieroquracy, did he tell them to raise pine for the hulls of his ships and straight, tall oaks for his masts? Did the new obsession with raising--and upgrading--just one crop on a piece of land lead to similar mono-cropping and gene-enhancing approaches to the industrial-level farming of sugar and of cotton in the newly discovered territories of the Caribbean--the West Indies? Did the tree plantations Henry needed to build his navies lead to the wealth of plantation clans like the family of my friend and former client Chris Blackwell in Jamaica? The Blackwells were once famous for their line of canned and jarred food products, products that appeared under the name of "Cross and Blackwell". Then Chris took the family fortune and used it to reap and to popularize another harvest of the Caribbean's English master-and-African-slave culture--reggae. Do we owe Bob Marley's mix of the Bible, Haile Selassie, a cargo-cult, and a magical beat to Henry VIII? Here are some books that helped me build this hypothesis: Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the Natural World: A History of The Modern Sensibility. New York: Pantheon Books. I believe it's this book that illustrated how London began to run low on wood as early as 1150. A.L. Rowse. The Expansion of Elizabethan England. London: MacMillan, 1955. A book that shows Henry turning his back on Europe and looking for an Empire in the Americas--particularly in the part of America the Spanish didn't want, North America. It also shows Henry building the squierocracy and, I believe, demanding trees. the ships Henry helped conceived may be in G.M. Trevelyan, A Shortened History of England, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1959 (originally published 1942). And the obsession of squires--and of just about every other sort of English person of property--with breeding shows up in, of all places, PG Wodehouse--especially in Clarence, ninth Earl of Emsworth and his obsession with pig-breeding and pig gene-tweaking, an obsession that leads to his love for one thing above all else in the world, the model of porcine perfection, the prize pig know to Wodehouse readers as the Empress of Blandings. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 11:55:45 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:55:45 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia Message-ID: <01C4D434.F9FBC070.shovland@mindspring.com> I agree that every source has to be examined for bias and that we all have to try to be honest about seeing our biases. There was a section in there about propaganda that looked like a pretty good toolkit. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 9:42 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia In a message dated 11/26/2004 8:00:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, shovland at mindspring.com writes: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Disinfopedia This looks like a very useful site. But there's a conundrum. The Center For Media and Democracy is a special interest group with a prejudged and premeditated point of view. It's also a public relations machine. A successful one. I've met with its head. He does not want to hear what Michael Lockhart identified as hypotheses. He was among those who did not want to hear about black-on-black genocide in the 1980s, when I tried to get him to focus on it. That genocide escalated in the 1990s. It was the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. The Center for Media & Democracy and its allies ruled out any of the coverage that could have stopped the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in its early stages and could have saved close to a million lives. The Center has very strong allies in the media and those allies also insisted that giving attention to the Hutus and Tutsis was politically unacceptable. The folks at The Center for Media and Democracy want only to hear voices that agree with their point of view--the "progressive" point of view, a set of social cliches policed by ostracism. Granted that we all want to hear our point of view or what supports it, once we get away from corporations and government agencies--whose media manipulations should be made as transparent as possible--shouldn't we also have watchdogs watching those who claim to be watchers? Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net << File: ATT00031.html >> << File: ATT00032.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 11:59:51 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:59:51 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] back to the plantation Message-ID: <01C4D435.8CA930B0.shovland@mindspring.com> I have heard that it took 100,000 oak trees to build a single ship of the line, which did indeed lead to the deforestation on Britain. There is a dramatic difference between subsistence farming and cash-crop farming. In recent decades Africa has had serious problems because they followed World Bank recommendations to shift from subsistence to cash crops. The upshot has been a collapse in the price of commodities and an inability of many people to feed themselves through purchases in the money economy. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com [SMTP:HowlBloom at aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 10:23 PM To: ff10 at txstate.edu Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] back to the plantation In a message dated 11/24/2004 7:41:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, ff10 at txstate.edu writes: HB, if you need any research done, I am pretty much free until Saturday...... Hope you are well.... Ive been quite busy for about two months now.... but during the holidays it slows down for us..... hb: here's a question still puzzling me for reinventing capitalism. Is my hypothesis about the rise of the plantation system correct? Did monocropping and the obsession with genetic engineering--or what was called "breeding" at the time--begin with the tree plantations Henry VIII needed to build the ships he'd helped invent--Baltic Sea-like cog ships, big-bellied ocean-capable cargo ships that could be outfitted with dozens of canons and could make the long, thin, one-cannon war galleys battling in the Mediterranean obsolete? Had England run low on wood when Henry came up with his naval innovation? When Henry tossed the church out of the third of England that the Vatican controlled, when he gave that land to his ambitious, modern friends, and when he turned these enterpreneurial masters of new estates into a squieroquracy, did he tell them to raise pine for the hulls of his ships and straight, tall oaks for his masts? Did the new obsession with raising--and upgrading--just one crop on a piece of land lead to similar mono-cropping and gene-enhancing approaches to the industrial-level farming of sugar and of cotton in the newly discovered territories of the Caribbean--the West Indies? Did the tree plantations Henry needed to build his navies lead to the wealth of plantation clans like the family of my friend and former client Chris Blackwell in Jamaica? The Blackwells were once famous for their line of canned and jarred food products, products that appeared under the name of "Cross and Blackwell". Then Chris took the family fortune and used it to reap and to popularize another harvest of the Caribbean's English master-and-African-slave culture--reggae. Do we owe Bob Marley's mix of the Bible, Haile Selassie, a cargo-cult, and a magical beat to Henry VIII? Here are some books that helped me build this hypothesis: Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the Natural World: A History of The Modern Sensibility. New York: Pantheon Books. I believe it's this book that illustrated how London began to run low on wood as early as 1150. A.L. Rowse. The Expansion of Elizabethan England. London: MacMillan, 1955. A book that shows Henry turning his back on Europe and looking for an Empire in the Americas--particularly in the part of America the Spanish didn't want, North America. It also shows Henry building the squierocracy and, I believe, demanding trees. the ships Henry helped conceived may be in G.M. Trevelyan, A Shortened History of England, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1959 (originally published 1942). And the obsession of squires--and of just about every other sort of English person of property--with breeding shows up in, of all places, PG Wodehouse--especially in Clarence, ninth Earl of Emsworth and his obsession with pig-breeding and pig gene-tweaking, an obsession that leads to his love for one thing above all else in the world, the model of porcine perfection, the prize pig know to Wodehouse readers as the Empress of Blandings. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net << File: ATT00035.html >> << File: ATT00036.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 15:28:24 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:28:24 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fair and balanced Message-ID: <01C4D452.AF1AEA40.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 125521 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 15:41:38 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:41:38 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] A reminder Message-ID: <01C4D454.8837DBC0.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 38025 bytes Desc: not available URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Nov 27 15:47:50 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:47:50 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Between Iraq and a hard place -- the first shoe drops Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041127103009.02268eb8@incoming.verizon.net> People have asked on this list: are we making progress in Iraq -- or are we steadily pouring salt into a wound in such concentration that the whole body will be starting to spasm soon? Last discussion ended with an argument I could paraphrase: "It is better for the world that we should be making progress, therefore a judicious and responsible person will of course believe that we are, with no questions asked." I am surprised that the deep psychologists on the list did not comment further on the epistemology assumed here. But... I have seen So MANY well-meant government programs go awry, that my views are a bit different. Sometimes the best guarantee of failure is the BELIEF that there are no problems to solve. How can you solve them if you do not even allow yourself to see them? In Iraq... The official line has been that we will move as fast as possible towards elections. The, when there is a legitimate elected government of Iraq, all will fall in place, and we will be able to get out. As soon as possible, of course. This has been sincerely meant, for the most part. And today -- the shoe falls. (Or A shoe falls.) A coalition of those folks most sympathetic to us in Iraq has agreed that we can't hold elections for quite a while... So we MUST think twice about what is going on. ----------- There is a simple first-cut explanation. (Sadly, as the clock ticks here, I doubt I will have time for a refined version...). The Sunnis know they will lose. So of course, they are fighting to the death, on many fronts at once, to prevent the new almost-Iranian regime they forsee. The informed world all knows that the US commitment to absolute majority rule in a unitary state really means a Shiite Iraq... and they laugh at us for serving that goal, while doing our best not to capitalize on the limited benefits it offers us (e.g. potential support form Iran, if only we didn't do our best to insult and offend all Iranians at all possible opportunities, rational and irrational both). Iran has even offered to help us achieve our goal, and they men it sincerely... So... as the Sunnis fight to the death... to try to win an all-or-nothing gamble, to restore Saddma's style of unitary rule... versus the new Shiite style they expect... I remember the noises some of us once made about the alternative of a more federal kind of system, less unitary, for Iraq. As was done in Germany after World War II -- but there is more logic for it in Iraq! I recall all the politically correct frothing reaction to that idea from the left and the right both ... the ideological commitment to absolute unitary states... yet I wonder: would the Sunnis be so bad, and so afraid of elections, if they had a certain amount of assurance that they could live in their own way in their own region? And it does not surprise me that the Kurds joined with the Sunnis in yesterday's pronouncement. Yes, there are tricky issues in managing internal regions... and some might cite Afghanistan as an example of what happens when local warlords are given to much power... but... one thing is for sure: we do need to pay some attention to their most reasonable fears. Nation-building without sensitivity doesn't work. Yes, we need to be firm -- but we also need to avoid being blind (or downright autistic in our collective behavior). Best, Paul From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 17:02:00 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:02:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Another reminder Message-ID: <01C4D45F.C1DF6040.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 19922 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Nov 27 17:07:04 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:07:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Thousand Yard Stare Message-ID: <01C4D460.778D62C0.shovland@mindspring.com> Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14603 bytes Desc: not available URL: From isaacsonj at hotmail.com Sat Nov 27 18:48:50 2004 From: isaacsonj at hotmail.com (Joel Isaacson) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:48:50 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] FW: RE: [pcp-discuss:] The likely Meta-System Transition in molecular evolution Message-ID: >From: "Shann Turnbull" >Reply-To: pcp-discuss at lanl.gov >To: >CC: >Subject: RE: [pcp-discuss:] The likely Meta-System Transition in molecular >evolution >Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:45:44 +1100 > >I also found the Mattick article exciting, but not being a biologist is was >not because that it challenged our thinking about the role of DNA but >because it indicated how the strategies found in nature for building >complex >self-reproducing organisations might provide guidance on how to design >complex social organisations and perhaps even a "global brain". > >It showed the need for an interdisciplinary approach to progress insights >into all the disciplines involved. > >Regards > >Shann > >Shann Turnbull PhD http://www.aprim.net/associates/turnbull.htm >Principal, International Institute for Self-governance >PO Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia 1350 >Ph+612 9328 7466 Mobile 0418 222 378, Papers at: >http://ssrn.com/author=26239 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-pcp-discuss at maillist.lanl.gov >[mailto:owner-pcp-discuss at maillist.lanl.gov] On Behalf Of Cliff Joslyn >Sent: Saturday, 27 November 2004 4:28 PM >To: pcp-discuss at lanl.gov >Cc: vturchin at bellatlantic.net >Subject: [pcp-discuss:] The likely Meta-System Transition in molecular >evolution > >I would like to draw everyone's attention to: > >Mattick, John: (2004) ``The Hidden Genetic Program of Complex >Organisms'', Scientific American, v. 291:4, pp. 60-67 > >See also his technical papers: > >"The evolution of controlled multitasked gene networks: The role of >introns and other noncoding RNAs in the development of complex >organisms", Mattick, JS; Gagen, MJ Source: Molecular Biology and >Evolution; September, 2001; v.18, no.9, p.1611-1630 > >"Challenging the dogma: The hidden layer of non-protein-coding RNAs in >complex organisms." Mattick, JS Source: BioEssays; October 2003; >v.25, no.10, p.930-939 > >"RNA regulation: a new genetics?" Mattick, JS Source: NATURE REVIEWS >GENETICS; APR 2004; v.5, no.4, p.316-323 > >I saw Mattick give a technical plenary at the 2003 Intelligence >Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB 03, one of the two premier >bioinformatics conferences), and was really blown away. The Scientific >American article is a superb semi-technical distillation of his >work. He has a revolutionary, but simple and elegant, thesis, highly >coherent with the principles of evolutionary cybernetics, and most >importantly, highly likely to be TRUE, about molecular evolution. It >puts so much of what I know about biological systems in context, while >answering many current mysteries, and really opens up the kind of >explanatory paradigm we've been lacking for so long, but is so >obviously suggested by a cybernetic perspective. > >In brief, consider these facts: > >*) Most genomes are characterized by a VERY high degree (> 98%) of >genomic sequence which are not genes, that is, does not code for >protein. This includes introns and so-called "intergenic space". > >*) However, recent evidence indicates that much of this genome is >actually expressed as RNA, and moreover, good chunks of it are >identical among evolutionarily distinct orgnanisms. This is a property >called "conservation", which indicates that it's functionally >significant for survival. And moreover, portions of non-coding DNA are >MORE highly conserved than proteins. > >*) This is NOT true in prokaryotes (bacteria lacking nuclei), but is >in eukaryotes. Prokaryotes were the only life on earth for 2.5 B >years. But a few hundred million years after the emergence of >eukaryotes also saw the origin of metazoans (multi-cellular >organisms), all of which are eukaryotes. > >*) Nonetheless, prokaryotes have on the same order of magnitude of >number of genes as eukaryotes. The riddle that organismal size and >complexity (however measured, a different discussion) does not >correlate to the number of genes present is well noted, especially in >the wake of the genomic revolution. > >*) BUT, total genome size, and in particular the RATIO of non-coding >to coding genome DOES more or less correlate with complexity. > >*) Finally, we note that the standard hypothesis for explaining >regulatory organization of sufficient complexity to generate metazoans >is that it is somehow embedded in the combinatorics of protein >interaction, that is, proteins acting on each other to form regulatory >networks. This is despite the fact that to a first approximation, >regulatory complexity must grow non-linearally with the number of >"components" controlled, on the order of the quadratic (to handle >pairs of proteins). And indeed, in PROKARYOTES the number of genes >increases with the square of organism size, up to a limit where the >number of regulatory genes is predicted to exceed the number of >functional genes, and the plateaus. > >The conclusion is inescapable: there was a major evolutionary step at >2.5 B years where an RNA-mediated network for the regulation of >protein function, encoded in "non-coding" DNA (introns and >intergenic space), arose, which resulted in the possibility of complex >organisms, including eukaryotes and especially the morphological >development of, and cell differentiation within, metazoans. Mattick >uses the metaphor of genes as simply the "parts list" (a description >of the individual TYPES of "lego blocks"), and the rest as the >instructions for putting them together (how many blocks of which type >to use where and when in morphological development). > >The argument is so strong and so reasonable, and simply MUST be >accepted prima facie: "The implications of this rule are >staggering. We may have totally misunderstood the nature of the >genomic programming and the basis of variations in traits among >individuals and species." (Mattick, the Sci Am paper). > >There's much more to this argument, including some fascinating >observations about further GENETIC specialty of primates, and even >humans. And while I've seen one of Mattick's technical talks, and read >the Sci Am piece, I have not studied his papers. Nor am I anything >like an expert in this area. My good colleagues here at LANL who are >molecular biologists say "yes, he's made a splash, but let's go slow". >And of course revolutionary ideas require the strongest evidence, and >Mattick is suggesting nothing other than a major revision to, if not >an obliteration of, the Central Dogma: > >"We may be witnessing such a turning point in our understanding of >genetic information. The central dogma of molecular biology for the >past half a century and more has stated that genetic information >encoded in DNA is transcribed as intermediary molecules of RNA, which >are in turn translated into the amino acid sequences that make up >proteins. The prevailing assumption, embodied in the credo 'one gene, >one protein', has been that genes are generally synonymous with >proteins. A corollary has been that proteins, in addition to their >structural and enzymatic roles in cells, must be the primary agents >for regulating the expression, or activation, of genes." (Mattick, >the Sci Am paper). > >But fortunately, I'm not a biologist, and so I can without hesitancy >say the following to this group of people interested in (and some >dedicated to) Turchin's Meta-System Transition (MST) theory. > >Turchin's original evolutionary system begins with multi-cellular >organisms, and we have speculated for some time about extending the >ideas to earlier evolutionary times. The route is now open with the >origin of the control of genetic expression. In the MST schema, this >is "X is the control of genetic expression", and I don't really know >what X is, something like "protein mechanisms" or "protein >interaction". But the other hallmarks of am MST are there, in the >possible divergence and specialization of the components being >controlled. >----- >O--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >| Cliff Joslyn, Research Team Leader (Cybernetician at Large) >| Knowledge Systems & Computational Biology; Computer & Computational >Science >| Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop B265, Los Alamos NM 87545 USA >| joslyn at lanl.gov http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~joslyn (505) 667-9096 >V All the world is biscuit-shaped. . . > >======================================== >Posting to pcp-discuss at lanl.gov from Cliff Joslyn > > >======================================== >Posting to pcp-discuss at lanl.gov from "Shann Turnbull" > From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Nov 28 01:19:00 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:19:00 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia References: Message-ID: <025201c4d4e8$3f33ff50$1700f604@S0027397558> >>This looks like a very useful site. But there's a conundrum. The Center For Media and Democracy is a special interest group with a prejudged and premeditated point of view. It's also a public relations machine. A successful one. >> Howard, CMD staff members Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have finished writing their fifth book, Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing Is Turning America Into a One-Party State. It's now in bookstores, or you can order it online. You can also find chapter summaries, an excerpt, and reviews of the book on our new Banana Republicans website. Are those who wish to turn America into a One-Party State considered "undemocratic". Or un-bananarepublican? After a "skim" at election results worldwide it would appear that initiating a one party system (for the present time) is not an unacceptable idea. Could you explain your calling The Center For Media and Democracy a prejudged and premeditated group? Is it only because they supported the Hutu-Tutsi conflict? Presently I have very few bones to pick with The Center. Thanks, Gerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Nov 28 01:47:49 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:47:49 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia Message-ID: <01C4D4A9.36C41C40.shovland@mindspring.com> We all tend to think that sources that reflect our own prejudices are objective. A lot of liberals listen to right wing media. How many conservatives listen to Air America? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:19 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia >>This looks like a very useful site. But there's a conundrum. The Center For Media and Democracy is a special interest group with a prejudged and premeditated point of view. It's also a public relations machine. A successful one. >> Howard, CMD staff members Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have finished writing their fifth book, Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing Is Turning America Into a One-Party State. It's now in bookstores, or you can order it online. You can also find chapter summaries, an excerpt, and reviews of the book on our new Banana Republicans website. Are those who wish to turn America into a One-Party State considered "undemocratic". Or un-bananarepublican? After a "skim" at election results worldwide it would appear that initiating a one party system (for the present time) is not an unacceptable idea. Could you explain your calling The Center For Media and Democracy a prejudged and premeditated group? Is it only because they supported the Hutu-Tutsi conflict? Presently I have very few bones to pick with The Center. Thanks, Gerry << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Nov 28 03:01:09 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:01:09 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia References: <01C4D4A9.36C41C40.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <028c01c4d4f6$8449aa00$1700f604@S0027397558> If you substitute the word viewpoint for prejudice, your sentence below should make more sense. My question concerned the initiation of a one-party system. Apparently you disapprove of such a setup. Please explain. Gerry http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:47 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia > We all tend to think that sources that reflect > our own prejudices are objective. > > A lot of liberals listen to right wing media. > > How many conservatives listen to Air America? > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:19 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia > >>>This looks like a very useful site. But there's a >>>conundrum. The Center > For Media and Democracy is a special interest group > with a prejudged and > premeditated point of view. It's also a public > relations machine. A > successful one. >> > > Howard, > > CMD staff members Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber > have finished writing > their fifth book, Banana Republicans: How the Right > Wing Is Turning America > Into a One-Party State. It's now in bookstores, or > you can order it online. > You can also find chapter summaries, an excerpt, and > reviews of the book on > our new Banana Republicans website. > > Are those who wish to turn America into a One-Party > State considered > "undemocratic". Or un-bananarepublican? After a > "skim" at election > results worldwide it would appear that initiating a > one party system (for > the present time) is not an unacceptable idea. Could > you explain your > calling The Center For Media and Democracy a > prejudged and premeditated > group? Is it only because they supported the > Hutu-Tutsi conflict? > Presently I have very few bones to pick with The > Center. > > Thanks, > > Gerry > > > > > > > << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Nov 28 05:26:36 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:26:36 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Disappearing Democrats? In-Reply-To: <028c01c4d4f6$8449aa00$1700f604@S0027397558> References: <01C4D4A9.36C41C40.shovland@mindspring.com> <028c01c4d4f6$8449aa00$1700f604@S0027397558> Message-ID: <41A9618C.3060006@solution-consulting.com> Gerry, It would be very bad for the country. Dialog helps create better solutions. But the premise is a weak one. The democrats will not disappear, and the notion that the repubs can somehow get rid of them doesn't make sense. The dems may be in the same position the repubs were in from 1930 to 1980, a minority party with old, tired ideas. There may be 50 years in the wilderness, so to speak, due to demographic trends. What I hope for is some really ingenious and innovative thinking from the dems. Currently the most interesting ideas come from the moderate to conservatives, like the flat tax, social security reform, and so on. In the traditional sense, the democrats have become conservatives, opposing change to the 60 year old welfare state, and the Republicans have become the liberals, embracing change and creating new ideas. Also bear in mind that American Conservatives are sui generis, and cannot be associated with conservatives in any other part of the world. The right wing in this country is emphatically not about privilege or power, and that is why the democrats failed to win enough hearts and minds this election. They are fighting straw men of their own make (e.g., Edwards two americas argument). Hence my anxiety about our country. We cannot flourish if the loyal opposition doesn't become creative and challenging. I hope for a stronger democratic party because it makes both parties more vibrant. Lynn Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > > If you substitute the word viewpoint for prejudice, your sentence > below should make more sense. > > My question concerned the initiation of a one-party system. > Apparently you disapprove of such a setup. Please explain. > > Gerry > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" > > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:47 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia > > >> We all tend to think that sources that reflect >> our own prejudices are objective. >> >> A lot of liberals listen to right wing media. >> >> How many conservatives listen to Air America? >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:19 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia >> >>>> This looks like a very useful site. But there's a conundrum. The >>>> Center >>> >> For Media and Democracy is a special interest group with a prejudged and >> premeditated point of view. It's also a public relations machine. A >> successful one. >> >> >> Howard, >> >> CMD staff members Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have finished writing >> their fifth book, Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing Is Turning >> America >> Into a One-Party State. It's now in bookstores, or you can order it >> online. >> You can also find chapter summaries, an excerpt, and reviews of the >> book on >> our new Banana Republicans website. >> >> Are those who wish to turn America into a One-Party State considered >> "undemocratic". Or un-bananarepublican? After a "skim" at election >> results worldwide it would appear that initiating a one party system >> (for >> the present time) is not an unacceptable idea. Could you explain your >> calling The Center For Media and Democracy a prejudged and premeditated >> group? Is it only because they supported the Hutu-Tutsi conflict? >> Presently I have very few bones to pick with The Center. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gerry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Nov 28 06:48:42 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:48:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Disappearing Democrats? Message-ID: <01C4D4D3.3F173510.shovland@mindspring.com> This afternoon when I was planting bulbs it occurred to me that the Republican party may soon arrive at a position similar to that of a football team that runs the same successful plays too many times. Eventually their opponents learn to see them coming and the plays no longer work. Many of the techniques the Republicans have used to gain ground in the last years or decades can be turned against them. If their propaganda is defeated then only the results of their positions will remain to be judged by the voters. I basically think that the Democrats have become the left wing of the elite party, and have little to contribute. That may be the reason why most of the post-election ferment is being generated by many people other than the establishment Democrats. I suspect that a large part of the Democratic base is in play and may quickly shift to politicians who can articulate their concerns and values. Some of those politicians will describe themselves as Democrats, but they won't be Bill Clinton's Democrats. More like Green Democrats. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:27 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Disappearing Democrats? Gerry, It would be very bad for the country. Dialog helps create better solutions. But the premise is a weak one. The democrats will not disappear, and the notion that the repubs can somehow get rid of them doesn't make sense. The dems may be in the same position the repubs were in from 1930 to 1980, a minority party with old, tired ideas. There may be 50 years in the wilderness, so to speak, due to demographic trends. What I hope for is some really ingenious and innovative thinking from the dems. Currently the most interesting ideas come from the moderate to conservatives, like the flat tax, social security reform, and so on. In the traditional sense, the democrats have become conservatives, opposing change to the 60 year old welfare state, and the Republicans have become the liberals, embracing change and creating new ideas. Also bear in mind that American Conservatives are sui generis, and cannot be associated with conservatives in any other part of the world. The right wing in this country is emphatically not about privilege or power, and that is why the democrats failed to win enough hearts and minds this election. They are fighting straw men of their own make (e.g., Edwards two americas argument). Hence my anxiety about our country. We cannot flourish if the loyal opposition doesn't become creative and challenging. I hope for a stronger democratic party because it makes both parties more vibrant. Lynn Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > > If you substitute the word viewpoint for prejudice, your sentence > below should make more sense. > > My question concerned the initiation of a one-party system. > Apparently you disapprove of such a setup. Please explain. > > Gerry > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" > > To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:47 PM > Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia > > >> We all tend to think that sources that reflect >> our own prejudices are objective. >> >> A lot of liberals listen to right wing media. >> >> How many conservatives listen to Air America? >> >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:19 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list >> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia >> >>>> This looks like a very useful site. But there's a conundrum. The >>>> Center >>> >> For Media and Democracy is a special interest group with a prejudged and >> premeditated point of view. It's also a public relations machine. A >> successful one. >> >> >> Howard, >> >> CMD staff members Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber have finished writing >> their fifth book, Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing Is Turning >> America >> Into a One-Party State. It's now in bookstores, or you can order it >> online. >> You can also find chapter summaries, an excerpt, and reviews of the >> book on >> our new Banana Republicans website. >> >> Are those who wish to turn America into a One-Party State considered >> "undemocratic". Or un-bananarepublican? After a "skim" at election >> results worldwide it would appear that initiating a one party system >> (for >> the present time) is not an unacceptable idea. Could you explain your >> calling The Center For Media and Democracy a prejudged and premeditated >> group? Is it only because they supported the Hutu-Tutsi conflict? >> Presently I have very few bones to pick with The Center. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gerry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Nov 28 07:52:57 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:52:57 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] FW: RE:The likely Meta-System in Junk DNA Message-ID: Hb: The material forwarded below by Joel Isaacson is amazing. But can I gloat for a minute? You?ll find the bulk of these ideas proposed in paleopsych discussions that go back to at least 2001. Not the RNA mechanisms--a huge part of the puzzle--but the general idea that junk dna provides the instructions for putting together the protein leggo blocks of complex creatures, and for changing the arrangement of those blocks over time. The prime contributors to this thread have been Greg Bear, Eshel Ben-Jacob, and, ummm, this is gonna be obnoxious, me. Below is the Scientific American article that Joel Isaacson, Shann Turnbull, and Cliff Joslyn are referring to. A special thanks to Cliff for summing the material and its significance up so exquisitely. Howard In a message dated 11/27/2004 5:50:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, isaacsonj at hotmail.com writes: >From: "Shann Turnbull" >Reply-To: pcp-discuss at lanl.gov >To: >CC: >Subject: RE: [pcp-discuss:] The likely Meta-System Transition in molecular >evolution >Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:45:44 +1100 > >I also found the Mattick article exciting, but not being a biologist is was >not because that it challenged our thinking about the role of DNA but >because it indicated how the strategies found in nature for building >complex >self-reproducing organisations might provide guidance on how to design >complex social organisations and perhaps even a "global brain". > >It showed the need for an interdisciplinary approach to progress insights >into all the disciplines involved. > >Regards > >Shann > >Shann Turnbull PhD http://www.aprim.net/associates/turnbull.htm >Principal, International Institute for Self-governance >PO Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia 1350 >Ph+612 9328 7466 Mobile 0418 222 378, Papers at: >http://ssrn.com/author=26239 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-pcp-discuss at maillist.lanl.gov >[mailto:owner-pcp-discuss at maillist.lanl.gov] On Behalf Of Cliff Joslyn >Sent: Saturday, 27 November 2004 4:28 PM >To: pcp-discuss at lanl.gov >Cc: vturchin at bellatlantic.net >Subject: [pcp-discuss:] The likely Meta-System Transition in molecular >evolution > >I would like to draw everyone's attention to: > >Mattick, John: (2004) ``The Hidden Genetic Program of Complex >Organisms'', Scientific American, v. 291:4, pp. 60-67 > >See also his technical papers: > >"The evolution of controlled multitasked gene networks: The role of >introns and other noncoding RNAs in the development of complex >organisms", Mattick, JS; Gagen, MJ Source: Molecular Biology and >Evolution; September, 2001; v.18, no.9, p.1611-1630 > >"Challenging the dogma: The hidden layer of non-protein-coding RNAs in >complex organisms." Mattick, JS Source: BioEssays; October 2003; >v.25, no.10, p.930-939 > >"RNA regulation: a new genetics?" Mattick, JS Source: NATURE REVIEWS >GENETICS; APR 2004; v.5, no.4, p.316-323 > >I saw Mattick give a technical plenary at the 2003 Intelligence >Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB 03, one of the two premier >bioinformatics conferences), and was really blown away. The Scientific >American article is a superb semi-technical distillation of his >work. He has a revolutionary, but simple and elegant, thesis, highly >coherent with the principles of evolutionary cybernetics, and most >importantly, highly likely to be TRUE, about molecular evolution. It >puts so much of what I know about biological systems in context, while >answering many current mysteries, and really opens up the kind of >explanatory paradigm we've been lacking for so long, but is so >obviously suggested by a cybernetic perspective. > >In brief, consider these facts: > >*) Most genomes are characterized by a VERY high degree (> 98%) of >genomic sequence which are not genes, that is, does not code for >protein. This includes introns and so-called "intergenic space". > >*) However, recent evidence indicates that much of this genome is >actually expressed as RNA, and moreover, good chunks of it are >identical among evolutionarily distinct orgnanisms. This is a property >called "conservation", which indicates that it's functionally >significant for survival. And moreover, portions of non-coding DNA are >MORE highly conserved than proteins. > >*) This is NOT true in prokaryotes (bacteria lacking nuclei), but is >in eukaryotes. Prokaryotes were the only life on earth for 2.5 B >years. But a few hundred million years after the emergence of >eukaryotes also saw the origin of metazoans (multi-cellular >organisms), all of which are eukaryotes. > >*) Nonetheless, prokaryotes have on the same order of magnitude of >number of genes as eukaryotes. The riddle that organismal size and >complexity (however measured, a different discussion) does not >correlate to the number of genes present is well noted, especially in >the wake of the genomic revolution. > >*) BUT, total genome size, and in particular the RATIO of non-coding >to coding genome DOES more or less correlate with complexity. > >*) Finally, we note that the standard hypothesis for explaining >regulatory organization of sufficient complexity to generate metazoans >is that it is somehow embedded in the combinatorics of protein >interaction, that is, proteins acting on each other to form regulatory >networks. This is despite the fact that to a first approximation, >regulatory complexity must grow non-linearally with the number of >"components" controlled, on the order of the quadratic (to handle >pairs of proteins). And indeed, in PROKARYOTES the number of genes >increases with the square of organism size, up to a limit where the >number of regulatory genes is predicted to exceed the number of >functional genes, and the plateaus. > >The conclusion is inescapable: there was a major evolutionary step at >2.5 B years where an RNA-mediated network for the regulation of >protein function, encoded in "non-coding" DNA (introns and >intergenic space), arose, which resulted in the possibility of complex >organisms, including eukaryotes and especially the morphological >development of, and cell differentiation within, metazoans. Mattick >uses the metaphor of genes as simply the "parts list" (a description >of the individual TYPES of "lego blocks"), and the rest as the >instructions for putting them together (how many blocks of which type >to use where and when in morphological development). > >The argument is so strong and so reasonable, and simply MUST be >accepted prima facie: "The implications of this rule are >staggering. We may have totally misunderstood the nature of the >genomic programming and the basis of variations in traits among >individuals and species." (Mattick, the Sci Am paper). > >There's much more to this argument, including some fascinating >observations about further GENETIC specialty of primates, and even >humans. And while I've seen one of Mattick's technical talks, and read >the Sci Am piece, I have not studied his papers. Nor am I anything >like an expert in this area. My good colleagues here at LANL who are >molecular biologists say "yes, he's made a splash, but let's go slow". >And of course revolutionary ideas require the strongest evidence, and >Mattick is suggesting nothing other than a major revision to, if not >an obliteration of, the Central Dogma: > >"We may be witnessing such a turning point in our understanding of >genetic information. The central dogma of molecular biology for the >past half a century and more has stated that genetic information >encoded in DNA is transcribed as intermediary molecules of RNA, which >are in turn translated into the amino acid sequences that make up >proteins. The prevailing assumption, embodied in the credo 'one gene, >one protein', has been that genes are generally synonymous with >proteins. A corollary has been that proteins, in addition to their >structural and enzymatic roles in cells, must be the primary agents >for regulating the expression, or activation, of genes." (Mattick, >the Sci Am paper). > >But fortunately, I'm not a biologist, and so I can without hesitancy >say the following to this group of people interested in (and some >dedicated to) Turchin's Meta-System Transition (MST) theory. > >Turchin's original evolutionary system begins with multi-cellular >organisms, and we have speculated for some time about extending the >ideas to earlier evolutionary times. The route is now open with the >origin of the control of genetic expression. In the MST schema, this >is "X is the control of genetic expression", and I don't really know >what X is, something like "protein mechanisms" or "protein >interaction". But the other hallmarks of am MST are there, in the >possible divergence and specialization of the components being >controlled. >----- >O--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >| Cliff Joslyn, Research Team Leader (Cybernetician at Large) >| Knowledge Systems & Computational Biology; Computer & Computational >Science >| Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop B265, Los Alamos NM 87545 USA >| joslyn at lanl.gov http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~joslyn (505) 667-9096 >V All the world is biscuit-shaped. . . ________ Retrieved November 28, 2004, from the World Wide Web NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY-MID MANHATTAN Title: THE HIDDEN GENETIC PROGRAM of COMPLEX ORGANISMS , By: Mattick, John S., Scientific American, 00368733, Oct2004, Vol. 291, Issue 4 Database: Academic Search Premier THE HIDDEN GENETIC PROGRAM of COMPLEX ORGANISMS Contents Overview/Revising Genetic Dogma The Ubiquitous Junk From Parasites to Parallel Controls Regulating Development Controlling Complexity MORE TO EXPLORE Biologists assumed that proteins alone regulate the genes of humans and other complex organisms. But an overlooked regulator based on RNA may hold the keys to development and evolution Overview/Revising Genetic Dogma * A perplexingly large portion of the DNA of complex organisms (eukaryotes) seems irrelevant to the production of proteins. For years, molecular biologists have assumed this extra material was evolutionary "junk". * New evidence suggests, however, that this junk DNA may encode RNA molecules that perform a variety of regulatory functions. The genetic mechanisms of eukaryotes may therefore be radically different from those of simple cells [prokaryotes]. * This new theory could explain why the structural and developmental complexity of organisms does not parallel their numbers of protein-coding genes. It also carries important implications for future pharmaceutical and medical research. Assumptions can be dangerous, especially in science. They usually start as the most plausible or comfortable interpretation of the available facts. But when their truth cannot be immediately tested and their flaws are not obvious, assumptions often graduate to articles of faith, and new observations are forced to fit them. Eventually, if the volume of troublesome information becomes unsustainable, the orthodoxy must collapse. We may be witnessing such a turning point in our understanding of genetic information. The central dogma of molecular biology for the past half a century and more has stated that genetic information encoded in DNA is transcribed as intermediary molecules of RNA, which are in turn translated into the amino acid sequences that make up proteins. The prevailing assumption, embodied in the credo "one gene, one protein," has been that genes are generally synonymous with proteins. A corollary has been that proteins, in addition to their structural and enzymatic roles in cells, must be the primary agents for regulating the expression, or activation, of genes. This conclusion derived from studies primarily on bacteria such as Escherichia coli and other prokaryotes (simple one-celled organisms lacking a nucleus). And indeed, it is still essentially correct for prokaryotes. Their DNA consists almost entirely of genes encoding proteins, separated by flanking sequences that regulate the expression of the adjacent genes. (A few genes that encode RNAs with regulatory jobs are also present, but they make up only a tiny fraction of most prokaryotes' genetic ensembles, or genomes.) Researchers have also long assumed that proteins similarly represent and control all the genetic information in animals, plants and fungi--the multicellular organisms classified as eukaryotes (having cells that contain nuclei). Pioneering biologist Jacques Monod summarized the universality of the central dogma as "What was true for E. coli would be true for the elephant." Monod was only partly right. A growing library of results reveals that the central dogma is woefully incomplete for describing the molecular biology of eukaryotes. Proteins do play a role in the regulation of eukaryotic gene expression, yet a hidden, parallel regulatory System consisting of RNA that acts directly on DNA, RNAs and proteins is also at work. This overlooked RNA-signaling network may be what allows humans, for example, to achieve structural complexity far beyond anything seen in the unicellular world. Some molecular biologists are skeptical or even antagonistic toward these unorthodox ideas. But the theory may answer some long-standing riddles of development and evolution and holds great implications for gene-based medicine and pharmaceuticals. Moreover, the recent discovery of this system affords insights that could revolutionize designs for complex programmed systems of all kinds, cybernetic as well as biological. The Ubiquitous Junk A DISCOVERY in 1977 presaged that something might be wrong with the established view of genomic programming. Phillip A. Sharp of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Richard J. Roberts of New England Biolabs, Inc., and their respective colleagues independently showed that the genes of eukaryotes are not contiguous blocks of protein-coding sequences. Rather they are mosaics of "exons" (DNA sequences that encode fragments of proteins) interspersed with often vast tracts of intervening sequences, or "introns," that do not code for protein. In the nucleus, a gene is first copied in its totality as a primary RNA transcript; then a process called splicing removes the intronic RNAs and reconstitutes a continuous coding sequence-messenger RNA, or mRNA-for translation as protein in the cytoplasm. The excised intronic RNA, serving no apparent purpose, has been presumed to be degraded and recycled. But if introns do not code for protein, then why are they ubiquitous among eukaryotes yet absent in prokaryotes? Although introns constitute 95 percent or more of the average protein-coding gene in humans, most molecular biologists have considered them to be evolutionary leftovers, or junk. Introns were rationalized as ancient remnants of a time before cellular life evolved, when fragments of protein-coding information crudely assembled into the first genes. Perhaps introns had survived in complex organisms because they had an incidental usefulness-for example, making it easier to reshuffle segments of proteins into useful new combinations during evolution. Similarly, biologists have assumed that the absence of introns from prokaryotes was a consequence of intense competitive pressures in the microbial environment: evolution had pruned away the introns as deadweight. One observation that made it easier to dismiss introns--and other seemingly useless "intergenic" DNA that sat between genes--as junk was that the amount of DNA in a genome does not correlate well with the organism's complexity. Some amphibians, for example, have more than five times as much DNA as mammals do, and astonishingly, some amoebae have 1,000 times more. For decades, researchers assumed that the underlying number of protein-coding genes in these organisms correlated much better with complexity but that the relationship was lost against the variable background clutter of introns and other junk sequences. But investigators have since sequenced the genomes of diverse species, and it has become abundantly clear that the correlation between numbers of conventional genes and complexity truly is poor. The simple nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (made up of only about 1,000 cells) has about 19,000 protein-coding genes, almost 50 percent more than insects (13,500) and nearly as many as humans (around 25,000). Conversely, the relation between the amount of nonprotein-coding DNA sequences and organism complexity is more consistent. Put simply, the conundrum is this: less than 1.5 percent of the human genome encodes proteins, but most of it is transcribed into RNA. Either the human genome (and that of other complex organisms) is replete with useless transcription, or these nonprotein-coding RNAs fulfill some unexpected function. This line of argument and considerable other experimental evidence suggest that many genes in complex organisms-perhaps even the majority of genes in mammals--do not encode protein but instead give rise to RNAs with direct regulatory functions [see "The Hidden Genome," by W. Wayt Gibbs, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, November and December 2003]. These RNAs may be transmitting a level of information that is crucial, particularly to development, and that plays a pivotal role in evolution. From Parasites to Parallel Controls THE CLUE to understanding this point may lie in a new interpretation of introns. Contrary to early assumptions that introns generally date back to the dawn of life, evidence amassed more recently indicates that these sequences invaded the genes of higher organisms late in evolution. Most likely, they derived from a type of self-splicing mobile genetic element similar to what are now called group II introns. These elements are parasitic bits of DNA that have the peculiar ability to insert themselves into host genomes and to splice themselves out when expressed as RNA. Group II introns are found only occasionally in bacteria, and it is easy to see why. Because bacteria lack a nucleus, transcription and translation occur together: RNA is translated into protein almost as fast as it is transcribed from DNA. There is no time for intronic RNA to splice itself out of the protein coding RNA in which it sits, so an intron would in most cases disable the gene it inhabits, with harmful consequences for the host bacterium. In eukaryotes, transcription occurs in the nucleus and translation in the cytoplasm, a separation that opens a window of opportunity for the intron RNA to excise itself. Introns can thus be more easily tolerated in eukaryotes. Of course, as long as introns needed to splice themselves in and out of genomes, their sequences could not have deviated much from that of group II introns. But a further leap in intron evolution may have accompanied the evolution in eukaryotes of the structure called the spliceosome. This is a complex of small catalytic RNAS and many proteins; its job is to snip intron RNA out of messenger RNA precursors efficiently. By freeing introns from the need to splice themselves, the spliceosome would in effect have encouraged introns to proliferate, mutate and evolve. Any random mutation in an intron that proved beneficial to the host organism would have been retained by natural selection. Intronic RNAs would therefore be evolving independently and in parallel with proteins. In short, the entry of introns into eukaryotes may have initiated an explosive new round of molecular evolution, based on RNA rather than protein. Instead of being junky molecular relics, introns could have progressively acquired genetic functions mediated by RNA. If this hypothesis is true, its meaning may be profound. Eukaryotes (especially the more complex ones) may have developed a genetic operating system and regulatory networks that are far more sophisticated than those of prokaryotes: RNAs and proteins could communicate regulatory information in parallel. Such an arrangement would resemble the advanced information-processing systems supporting network controls in computers and the brain. Functional jobs in cells routinely belong to proteins because they have great chemical and structural diversity. Yet RNA has an advantage over proteins for transmitting information and regulating activities involving the genome itself: RNAs can encode short, sequence-specific signals as a kind of bit string or zip code. These embedded codes can direct RNA molecules precisely to receptive targets in other RNAs and DNA. The RNA-RNA and RNA-DNA interactions could in turn create structures that recruit proteins to convert the signals to actions. The bit string of addressing information in the RNA gives this system the power of tremendous precision, just as the binary bit strings used by digital computers do. It is not too much of a stretch to say that this RNA regulatory system would be largely digital in nature. The evidence for a widespread RNA-based regulatory system is strong, albeit still patchy. If such a system exists, one would expect that many genes might have evolved solely to express RNA signals as higher-order regulators in the network. That appears to be the case: thousands of RNAs that never get translated into protein (noncoding RNAs) have been identified in recent analyses of transcription in mammals. At least half and possibly more than three quarters of all RNA transcripts fit this category. One would also expect that many of these RNAs might be processed into smaller signals capable of addressing targets in the network. Hundreds of "microRNAs" derived from introns and larger nonprotein-coding RNA transcripts have in fact already been identified in plants, animals and fungi. Many of them control the timing of processes that occur during development, such as stem cell maintenance, cell proliferation, and apoptosis (the so-called programmed cell death that remodels tissues). Many more such small RNAs surely await discovery. These RNA signals, by finding targets on other RNAs, DNA and proteins, could influence a cell's genetic program in many ways. For example, they could inform various genes that a particular protein-coding sequence has been transcribed, and that feedback could trigger a host of parallel adjustments. More important, however, the RNA signals could serve as a powerful feed-forward program embedded in the genetic material that controls the trajectories of gene expression. If so, they could explain some of the deep mysteries surrounding cell differentiation and organism development. Regulating Development CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENS during human embryonic development: a single fertilized cell progresses to become a precisely structured, beautifully sculptured organism of an estimated 100 trillion cells with distinct positions and functions. The pattern of gene expression that makes this transformation possible relies heavily on two phenomena: modification of chromatin and alternative splicing. Chromatin is the material that makes up chromosomes; it consists of DNA complexed with proteins. Within cells, small chemical tags (such as methyl and acetyl groups) can attach to segments of the DNA and to the chromatin proteins and thereby determine whether the genes in the associated DNA will be accessible for transcription or will stay silent. Recent results indicate that RNA signaling directs the tagging of the chromatin and thus gene expression. Indeed, a number of complex chromosomal processes, such as mitosis (cell division) and meiosis (the formation of sperm and egg precursors), as well as a range of complex genetic phenomena appear to depend on biochemical pathways that affect RNA processing. Alternative splicing generates divergent repertoires of RNAs and proteins in the cells of a body's different tissues, all of which share a common set of genes. Most protein-coding transcripts are alternatively spliced in mammals. When intron RNA is spliced out of a gene's transcript, the protein-coding RNA regions may be assembled in more than one way to yield more than one type of protein. The phenomenon is of fundamental importance to animal and plant development, but no one yet understands how cells specify which form of a protein they will make. Few protein factors that control the alternative splicing of specific genes have been found. Consequently, researchers have usually supposed that subtle combinations of general factors activate or repress alternative splicing in different contexts. But no strong evidence has backed up that presumption. A more likely and mechanistically appealing possibility, however, is that RNAs regulate the process directly. In principle, these molecules could exert exquisitely flexible control by tagging or grabbing particular sequences in primary gene transcripts and steering how the spliceosome joins the pieces. In keeping with that idea, DNA sequences at the intron-exon junctions where alternative splicing occurs are often resistant to change during evolution. Also, a number of laboratories have demonstrated that artificial antisense RNAs designed to bind to such sites can modify splicing patterns in cultured cells, as well as in whole animals. It is perfectly plausible that this phenomenon occurs naturally in vivo, too, but has just not yet been detected. Controlling Complexity SUCH CONSIDERATIONS lead naturally to a more general consideration of what type of information, and how much of it, might be required to program the development of complex organisms. The creation of complex objects, whether houses or horses, demands two kinds of specifications: one for the components and one for the system that guides their assembly. (To build a house, one must specify the needed bricks, boards and beams, but one must also have an architectural plan to show how they fit together.) In biology, unlike engineering, both types of information are encoded within one program, the DNA. The component molecules that make up different organisms (both at the individual and the species levels) are fundamentally alike: around 99 percent of the proteins in humans have recognizable equivalents in mice, and vice versa; many of those proteins are also conserved in other animals, and those involved in basic cellular processes are conserved in all eukaryotes. Thus, the differences in animals' forms surely arise more fundamentally from differences in the architectural information. Protein-coding genes obviously specify the components of organisms, but where does the architectural information reside? Biologists have widely assumed that the instructions for assembling complex organisms are somehow embedded in the diverse combinations of regulatory factors within cells--that is, in the permutations of regulatory proteins interacting with one another and with the DNA and RNA. Yet, as Daniel C. Dennett of Tufts University has observed, although such combinatorics can generate almost endless possibilities, the vast majority will be chaotic and meaningless-which is problematic for biology. Throughout their evolution and development, organisms must navigate precise developmental pathways that are sensible and competitive, or else they die. Generating complexity is easy; controlling it is not. The latter requires an enormous amount of regulatory information. Both intuitive and mathematical considerations suggest that the amount of regulation must increase as a nonlinear (usually quadratic) function of the number of genes. So, as the system becomes more complex, an increasing proportion of it must be devoted to regulation. This nonlinear relation between regulation and function appears to be a feature of all integrally organized systems. Therefore, all such systems have an intrinsic complexity limit imposed by the accelerating growth of their control architecture, until or unless the regulatory mechanism changes fundamentally. In agreement with this prediction, the number of protein regulators in prokaryotes has been found to increase quadratically with genome size. Moreover, extrapolation indicates that the point at which the number of new regulators is predicted to exceed the number of new functional genes is close to the observed upper limit of bacterial genome sizes. Throughout evolution, therefore, the complexity of prokaryotes may have been limited by genetic regulatory overhead, rather than by environmental or biochemical factors as has been commonly assumed. This conclusion is also consistent with the fact that life on earth consisted solely of microorganisms for most of its history. Combinatorics of protein interactions could not, by themselves, lift that complexity ceiling. Eukaryotes must have found a solution to this problem. Logic and the available evidence suggest that the rise of multicellular organisms over the past billion years was a consequence of the transition to a new control architecture based largely on endogenous digital RNA signals. It would certainly help explain the phenomenon of the Cambrian explosion about 525 million years ago, when invertebrate animals of jaw-dropping diversity evolved, seemingly abruptly, from much simpler life. Indeed, these results suggest a general rule with relevance beyond biology: organized complexity is a function of regulatory information--and, in virtually all systems, as observed by Marie E. Csete, now at Emory University School of Medicine, and John C. Doyle of the California Institute of Technology, explosions in complexity occur as a result of advanced controls and embedded networking. The implications of this rule are staggering. We may have totally misunderstood the nature of the genomic programming and the basis of variations in traits among individuals and species. The rule implies that the greater portion of the genomes in complex organisms is not junk at all--rather it is functional and subject to evolutionary selection. The most recent surprise is that vertebrate genomes contain thousands of noncoding sequences that have persisted virtually unaltered for many millions of years. These sequences are much more highly conserved than those coding for proteins, which was totally unexpected. The mechanism that has frozen these sequences is unknown, but their extreme constancy suggests that they are involved in complex networks essential to our biology. Thus, rather than the genomes of humans and other complex organisms being viewed as oases of protein-coding sequences in a desert of junk, they might better be seen as islands of protein-component information in a sea of regulatory information, most of which is conveyed by RNA. The existence of an extensive RNA-based regulatory system also has ramifications for pharmacology, drug development and genetic screening. Traditional genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and thalassemia are caused by catastrophic component damage: one of the individual's proteins simply doesn't work. Yet many, if not most, of the genetic variations determining susceptibility to most diseases and underpinning our individual idiosyncrasies probably lie in the noncoding regulatory architecture of our genome that controls growth and development. (Noncoding RNAs have already been linked with several conditions, including B cell lymphoma, lung cancer, prostate cancer, autism and schizophrenia.) Such defects will not be easy to identify by molecular genetic epidemiology, nor will they necessarily be easy to correct. But understanding this regulatory system may ultimately be critical to understanding our physical and psychological individuality, as well as trait variation in plants and animals. It may also be the prelude to sophisticated strategies for medical intervention to optimize health and for truly advanced genetic engineering in other species. Aside from introns, the other great source of presumed genomic junk--accounting for about 40 percent of the human genome--comprises transposons and other repetitive elements. These sequences are widely regarded as molecular parasites that, like introns, colonized our genomes in waves at different times in evolutionary history. Like all immigrants, they may have been unwelcome at first, but once est ablished in the community they and their descendants progressively became part of its dynamic--changing, contributing and evolving with it. Good, albeit patchy, evidence suggests that transposons contribute to the evolution and genomic regulation of higher organisms and may play a key role in epigenetic inheritance (the modification of genetic traits). Moreover, this past July Erev Y. Levanon of Compugen and colleagues elsewhere announced an exciting discovery involving a process called A-to-I (adenosine-to-inosine) editing, in which an RNA sequence changes at a very specific site. They demonstrated that A-to-I editing of RNA transcripts is two orders of magnitude more widespread in humans than was previously thought and overwhelmingly occurs in repeat sequences called Alu elements that reside in noncoding RNA sequences. A-to-I editing is particularly active in the brain, and aberrant editing has been associated with a range of abnormal behaviors, including epilepsy and depression. Although RNA editing occurs to some extent in all animals, Alu elements are unique to primates. An intriguing possibility is that the colonization of the primate lineage by Alu elements made it possible for a new level of complexity to arise in RNA processing and allowed the programming for neural circuitry to become more dynamic and flexible. That versatility may have in turn laid the foundation for the emergence of memory and higher-order cognition in the human species. Finally, understanding the operation of the expanded and highly sophisticated regulatory architecture in the genomes of complex organisms may shed light on the challenges of designing systems capable of self-reproduction and self-programming-that is, true artificial life and artificial intelligence. What was dismissed as junk because it was not understood may well turn out to hold the secrets to human complexity and a guide to the programming of complex systems in general. MORE TO EXPLORE Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Daniel C. Dennett. Simon and Schuster, 1995. Challenging the Dogma: The Hidden Layer of Non-Protein-Coding RNAs In Complex Organisms. John S. Mattick in BioEssays, Vol. 25, No. 10, pages 930-939; October 2003. The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk. W. Wayt Gibbs in Scientific American, Vol. 289, No. 5, pages 46-53; November 2003. Noncoding RNAs: Molecular Biology and Molecular Medicine. Edited by J. Barciszewski and V. A. Erdmann. Landes Bioscience/Eurekah.com, Georgetown, Tex., 2003. More information and lists of publications will be found at the author's Web site [under construction] at http://imb.uq.edu.au/groups/mattick GRAPH: NONPROTEIN-CODING SEQUENCES make up only a small fraction of the DNA of prokaryotes. Among eukaryotes, as their complexity increases, generally so, too, does the proportion of their DNA that does not code for protein. The noncoding sequences have been considered junk, but perhaps it actually helps to explain organisms' complexity. DIAGRAM: PROPOSED PRECURSOR molecule for microRNAs is a primary RNA transcript that may produce multiple small RNAs. The structure of the precursor might guide the excision of these small RNA signals. DIAGRAM: UNICELLULAR LIFE, primarily prokaryotes, ruled the earth for billions of years. When multicellular life appeared, however, its complexity rose with dizzying speed. The evolution of an additional genetic regulatory system might explain both the jump to multicellularity and the rapid diversification into complexity. PHOTO (COLOR): BACTERIA AND HUMANS differ greatly in their structural and developmental complexity, but biologists have long assumed that all organisms used the same genetic mechanisms. Yet new work hints that complexity arises from an additional program hidden in "junk" DNA. ~~~~~~~~ By John S. Mattick JOHN S. MATTICK, born and raised in Sydney, today is a professor of molecular biology at the University of Queensland and director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience. Formerly he was also foundation director of the Australian Genome Research Facility. His accomplished career includes the development of Australia's first genetically engineered vaccine. In 2001 Mattick was appointed an Officer in the Order of Australia, and in 2003 he was awarded the Australian government's Centenary Medal. Married with three sons, he enjoys walking and body surfing as time permits. AN EVOLVING VIEW OF GENE ACTIVITY GENE ACTIVITY IN PROKARYOTES Prokaryotes (bacteria and other simple cells] have DNA that consists almost entirely of protein-coding genes. When those genes are active, they give rise to RNA transcripts that are immediately translated into proteins, which in turn regulate genetic activity and provide other functions. TRADITIONAL VIEW OF GENE ACTIVITY IN EUKARYOTES In the DNA of eukaryotes (complex organisms), individual genes comprise "exon" sequences that code for segments of protein separated by noncoding "intron" sequences. When a gene is active, it is entirely transcribed as RNA, but then the intronic RNA is spliced out and the exonic RNA is assembled as messenger RNA. The cell translates the messenger RNA into protein while breaking down and recycling the intronic RNA, which serves no purpose. NEW VIEW OF GENE ACTIVITY IN EUKARYOTES Some of the intronic RNA and even some of the assembled exonic RNA may play a direct regulatory role by interacting with the DNA, other RNA molecules or proteins. By modifying protein production at various levels, these noncoding RNAs may superimpose additional genetic instructions on a cell. DIAGRAM DIAGRAM DIAGRAM Copyright of Scientific American is the property of Scientific American Inc. and its content may not be copied or e-mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder`s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use. Source: Scientific American, Oct2004, Vol. 291 Issue 4, p60, 8p Item: 14394130 Top of Page Formats: Cita tionCitation HTML Full TextHTML Full Text No previous pages 1 of 1 No additional pages Result List | Refine Search PrintPrint E-mailE-mail SaveSave Items added to the folder may be printed, e-mailed or saved from the View Folder screen.Folder is empty. ? 2004 EBSCO Publishing. Privacy Policy - Terms of Use ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Nov 28 16:19:18 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] conserved stuff in 'junk' DNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041128111239.00bef528@incoming.verizon.net> If the "junk" DNA is more highly conserved than the usual DNA... that's important. It may suggest an interpretation a bit different from what we have been drifting into. Two alternative views of what that datum implies -- A conservative view might be that "what you see is what you get after all," and that the "junk DNA"... is like the glia cells in the brain, which people think supply metabolic support to ALLOW neurons to play the decisive role everyone assumes... could it be that the nonjunk DNA is as dominant as people have always thought, and that the "junk DNA" is a kind of constant support system... evolved long,long ago and then frozen? The paper you cited says the junk DNA is "highly conserved," but doesn't say whether it is constant across all types of earth life, or just major groups. A totally different view... "high conserved" could just mean slowly changing. In multilayer time-lagged recurrent neural networks... we know we need to have slower learning rates for stuff which is further away from direct empirical testing. New categories of perception evolve more slowly than ... the formation of memories using EXISTING categories, which can be "one-trial memories." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Nov 28 17:42:54 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:42:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Disappearing America? References: <01C4D4A9.36C41C40.shovland@mindspring.com><028c01c4d4f6$8449aa00$1700f604@S0027397558> <41A9618C.3060006@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <00e001c4d571$b24b0c20$f903f604@S0027397558> Lynn, Dialog is the essence of a democracy when there are many divergent viewpoints. It's when, within a given country, most viewpoints begin to merge and clear demarkations between factions begin to blur. This is when that the concept of a one-party system kicks in. Actually what is happening is that a world mindset is taking over and each country becomes a different viewpoint not unlike what happened in the past within a particular country. All Americans need to "get global" and think of themselves as cog in a world mindset rather than strickly one which thinks in terms of USA. Gerry http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D." To: "The new improved paleopsych list" Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:26 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] Disappearing Democrats? > Gerry, > It would be very bad for the country. Dialog helps > create better solutions. But the premise is a weak > one. The democrats will not disappear, and the notion > that the repubs can somehow get rid of them doesn't > make sense. The dems may be in the same position the > repubs were in from 1930 to 1980, a minority party > with old, tired ideas. There may be 50 years in the > wilderness, so to speak, due to demographic trends. > What I hope for is some really ingenious and > innovative thinking from the dems. Currently the most > interesting ideas come from the moderate to > conservatives, like the flat tax, social security > reform, and so on. In the traditional sense, the > democrats have become conservatives, opposing change > to the 60 year old welfare state, and the Republicans > have become the liberals, embracing change and > creating new ideas. > Also bear in mind that American Conservatives are > sui generis, and cannot be associated with > conservatives in any other part of the world. The > right wing in this country is emphatically not about > privilege or power, and that is why the democrats > failed to win enough hearts and minds this election. > They are fighting straw men of their own make (e.g., > Edwards two americas argument). Hence my anxiety > about our country. We cannot flourish if the loyal > opposition doesn't become creative and challenging. I > hope for a stronger democratic party because it makes > both parties more vibrant. > Lynn > > Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > >> >> If you substitute the word viewpoint for prejudice, >> your sentence below should make more sense. >> >> My question concerned the initiation of a one-party >> system. Apparently you disapprove of such a setup. >> Please explain. >> >> Gerry >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" >> >> To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >> >> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:47 PM >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia >> >> >>> We all tend to think that sources that reflect >>> our own prejudices are objective. >>> >>> A lot of liberals listen to right wing media. >>> >>> How many conservatives listen to Air America? >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt >>> [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:19 PM >>> To: The new improved paleopsych list >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia >>> >>>>> This looks like a very useful site. But there's >>>>> a conundrum. The Center >>>> >>> For Media and Democracy is a special interest group >>> with a prejudged and >>> premeditated point of view. It's also a public >>> relations machine. A >>> successful one. >> >>> >>> Howard, >>> >>> CMD staff members Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber >>> have finished writing >>> their fifth book, Banana Republicans: How the Right >>> Wing Is Turning America >>> Into a One-Party State. It's now in bookstores, or >>> you can order it online. >>> You can also find chapter summaries, an excerpt, >>> and reviews of the book on >>> our new Banana Republicans website. >>> >>> Are those who wish to turn America into a One-Party >>> State considered >>> "undemocratic". Or un-bananarepublican? After a >>> "skim" at election >>> results worldwide it would appear that initiating a >>> one party system (for >>> the present time) is not an unacceptable idea. >>> Could you explain your >>> calling The Center For Media and Democracy a >>> prejudged and premeditated >>> group? Is it only because they supported the >>> Hutu-Tutsi conflict? >>> Presently I have very few bones to pick with The >>> Center. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gerry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sun Nov 28 18:48:05 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:48:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] ivory tower elites In-Reply-To: <200411271900.iARJ0v008594@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041128184805.15554.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>My street level knowledge says that some of these studies are not very scientific. Worse, they are pseudoscience or mercenary science.<< --I'd have to do extensive research to decide with "absolute" certainty which research is right. I know reality is often counterintuitive and does not conform to either political side's theories as well as they'd like. It's possible minimum wage laws hurt workers, it's also possible that what appears to work in a think tank study will fail when applied to reality. Hard to say, without experimenting with the actual system, and that involves affecting real people. I worry that the anti-liberal movement is drawing on theory and ideology more than a street-level understanding of what life is like for people other than them. It is the equivalent of the "ivory tower liberal elite", something conservatives deplore. Being in a think tank as opposed to an academic establishment does not mean one is more in touch with reality, and it is easy for intellectuals of any political stripe to miss variables that in reality are crucial. michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Nov 28 19:10:04 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:10:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Disappearing Democrats? References: <01C4D4D3.3F173510.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <01a101c4d57d$df34bc20$f903f604@S0027397558> > Some of those politicians will describe themselves as > Democrats, but they won't be Bill Clinton's > Democrats. > More like Green Democrats. Will your Green Democrats support an alternative energy source (other than fossil fuels) or will they be overly eager proponents of Saving the Redwoods? Likewise, those who support "StR" could also be against Saving the Whales. How many more degrees of decentralization are necessary before the light clicks on and one sees reality as a global issue and not specific to a given nation. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 10:48 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Disappearing Democrats? > This afternoon when I was planting bulbs it occurred > to > me that the Republican party may soon arrive at a > position > similar to that of a football team that runs the same > successful plays too many times. > > Eventually their opponents learn to see them coming > and the plays no longer work. > > Many of the techniques the Republicans have used > to gain ground in the last years or decades can be > turned against them. > > If their propaganda is defeated then only the results > of > their positions will remain to be judged by the > voters. > > I basically think that the Democrats have become the > left wing of the elite party, and have little to > contribute. > > That may be the reason why most of the post-election > ferment is being generated by many people other than > the establishment Democrats. > > I suspect that a large part of the Democratic base is > in > play and may quickly shift to politicians who can > articulate their concerns and values. > > Some of those politicians will describe themselves as > Democrats, but they won't be Bill Clinton's > Democrats. > More like Green Democrats. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. > [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:27 PM > To: The new improved paleopsych list > Subject: [Paleopsych] Disappearing Democrats? > > Gerry, > It would be very bad for the country. Dialog helps > create better > solutions. But the premise is a weak one. The > democrats will not > disappear, and the notion that the repubs can somehow > get rid of them > doesn't make sense. The dems may be in the same > position the repubs were > in from 1930 to 1980, a minority party with old, > tired ideas. There may > be 50 years in the wilderness, so to speak, due to > demographic trends. > What I hope for is some really ingenious and > innovative thinking > from the dems. Currently the most interesting ideas > come from the > moderate to conservatives, like the flat tax, social > security reform, > and so on. In the traditional sense, the democrats > have become > conservatives, opposing change to the 60 year old > welfare state, and the > Republicans have become the liberals, embracing > change and creating new > ideas. > Also bear in mind that American Conservatives are > sui generis, and > cannot be associated with conservatives in any other > part of the world. > The right wing in this country is emphatically not > about privilege or > power, and that is why the democrats failed to win > enough hearts and > minds this election. They are fighting straw men of > their own make > (e.g., Edwards two americas argument). Hence my > anxiety about our > country. We cannot flourish if the loyal opposition > doesn't become > creative and challenging. I hope for a stronger > democratic party because > it makes both parties more vibrant. > Lynn > > Geraldine Reinhardt wrote: > >> >> If you substitute the word viewpoint for prejudice, >> your sentence >> below should make more sense. >> >> My question concerned the initiation of a one-party >> system. >> Apparently you disapprove of such a setup. Please >> explain. >> >> Gerry >> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" >> >> To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" >> >> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:47 PM >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia >> >> >>> We all tend to think that sources that reflect >>> our own prejudices are objective. >>> >>> A lot of liberals listen to right wing media. >>> >>> How many conservatives listen to Air America? >>> >>> Steve Hovland >>> www.stevehovland.net >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt >>> [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net] >>> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 5:19 PM >>> To: The new improved paleopsych list >>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Re: Disinfopedia >>> >>>>> This looks like a very useful site. But there's >>>>> a conundrum. The >>>>> Center >>>> >>> For Media and Democracy is a special interest group >>> with a prejudged and >>> premeditated point of view. It's also a public >>> relations machine. A >>> successful one. >> >>> >>> Howard, >>> >>> CMD staff members Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber >>> have finished writing >>> their fifth book, Banana Republicans: How the Right >>> Wing Is Turning >>> America >>> Into a One-Party State. It's now in bookstores, or >>> you can order it >>> online. >>> You can also find chapter summaries, an excerpt, >>> and reviews of the >>> book on >>> our new Banana Republicans website. >>> >>> Are those who wish to turn America into a One-Party >>> State considered >>> "undemocratic". Or un-bananarepublican? After a >>> "skim" at election >>> results worldwide it would appear that initiating a >>> one party system >>> (for >>> the present time) is not an unacceptable idea. >>> Could you explain your >>> calling The Center For Media and Democracy a >>> prejudged and premeditated >>> group? Is it only because they supported the >>> Hutu-Tutsi conflict? >>> Presently I have very few bones to pick with The >>> Center. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Gerry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> << File: ATT00000.html >> << File: ATT00001.txt >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paleopsych mailing list >>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Nov 28 19:21:58 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:21:58 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] ivory tower elites Message-ID: <01C4D53C.7A36C3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> I am aware that studies can be concocted to prove just about any position. The end result is to make one suspicious of the whole concept of studies, particularly in the realm of the social pseudosciences. Any study needs to be examined for bias due to funding source, the type of questions asked and the way that they are asked, population, sample size, sample selection, and duration. There is not much objectivity in the real world, and at any point in time the state of the global brain is an interference pattern generated by the contending viewpoints. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:48 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] ivory tower elites >>My street level knowledge says that some of these studies are not very scientific. Worse, they are pseudoscience or mercenary science.<< --I'd have to do extensive research to decide with "absolute" certainty which research is right. I know reality is often counterintuitive and does not conform to either political side's theories as well as they'd like. It's possible minimum wage laws hurt workers, it's also possible that what appears to work in a think tank study will fail when applied to reality. Hard to say, without experimenting with the actual system, and that involves affecting real people. I worry that the anti-liberal movement is drawing on theory and ideology more than a street-level understanding of what life is like for people other than them. It is the equivalent of the "ivory tower liberal elite", something conservatives deplore. Being in a think tank as opposed to an academic establishment does not mean one is more in touch with reality, and it is easy for intellectuals of any political stripe to miss variables that in reality are crucial. michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From waluk at earthlink.net Sun Nov 28 19:31:35 2004 From: waluk at earthlink.net (Geraldine Reinhardt) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:31:35 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] ivory tower elites References: <01C4D53C.7A36C3E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <021901c4d580$e08b1d00$f903f604@S0027397558> > There is not much objectivity in the real world, > and at any point in time the state of the global > brain is an interference pattern generated by > the contending viewpoints. Spot on. Reality is similar to what can be found on the internet and this appears to consist of every viewpoint imaginable. Be it in the sciences, pseudosciences, arts or whathaveyou any position can be proven and justified. That could be what is so fabulous about the Global Brain! Everyone can find something to whet his/her appetite. Academics should be no different from other specialties such as medicine, law, government, health, etc. All thinking is a compendium of viewpoints. Gerry Reinhart-Waller Independent Scholar http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 11:21 AM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] ivory tower elites >I am aware that studies can be concocted to > prove just about any position. > > The end result is to make one suspicious of > the whole concept of studies, particularly in > the realm of the social pseudosciences. > > Any study needs to be examined for bias due > to funding source, the type of questions asked > and the way that they are asked, population, > sample size, sample selection, and duration. > > There is not much objectivity in the real world, > and at any point in time the state of the global > brain is an interference pattern generated by > the contending viewpoints. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Christopher > [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:48 AM > To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org > Subject: [Paleopsych] ivory tower elites > > >>>My street level knowledge says that some of these > studies are not very scientific. Worse, they are > pseudoscience or mercenary science.<< > > --I'd have to do extensive research to decide with > "absolute" certainty which research is right. I know > reality is often counterintuitive and does not > conform > to either political side's theories as well as they'd > like. It's possible minimum wage laws hurt workers, > it's also possible that what appears to work in a > think tank study will fail when applied to reality. > Hard to say, without experimenting with the actual > system, and that involves affecting real people. > > I worry that the anti-liberal movement is drawing on > theory and ideology more than a street-level > understanding of what life is like for people other > than them. It is the equivalent of the "ivory tower > liberal elite", something conservatives deplore. > Being > in a think tank as opposed to an academic > establishment does not mean one is more in touch with > reality, and it is easy for intellectuals of any > political stripe to miss variables that in reality > are > crucial. > > michael > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? > http://my.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Nov 28 19:38:44 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:38:44 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Green Democrat Values Message-ID: <01C4D53E.D1A33800.shovland@mindspring.com> Humans should not devour the Earth like a plague of locusts. Budgets should be balanced by a reasonable system of taxation. We should lower the ceiling on wealth if that's what it takes to provide a decent floor. War should be the last resort, not the first. Threats should be anticipated, but cannot be used to justify conquering countries that have not attacked us. Wealth should be produced without exploitation of workers. Money should not be the only motivation for high achievement. Watching TV shows where people commit acts of violence is more harmful to children than watching TV shows where people have sex. People who come to America should make an honest effort to become Americans- learn the language, become citizens. Bilingual education should be abolished because it discriminates against Asian immigrants who are not similarly accommodated. Employers should be punished for hiring illegal aliens at substandard wages. Immigration should be halted until everyone who is here is fully employed. People should not try to feed their souls with material goods. Drug addiction should be seen as a soul problem, not as a crime. Human rights should not be trumped by property rights. We should embrace ecstatic experience, not fear it. We must rapidly adapt to alternative energy to avoid an econonic catastrophe due to petroleum depletion. Technology should not be toxic to humans. The existence of industries such as tobacco that cause significant health problems should not be tolerated. Health care should include care for the soul as well as for the body. Health care should really be health care rather than disease care. Health care should be put under the microscope to find out where all the money is going. Civil liberties should not be restricted in the interests of security. Competent police and intelligence activities should be sufficient to manage crime and other threats. People should not be subjected to invasive searches at airports as long as cargo goes uninspected. Sting operations by all law enforcement agencies should be abolished. We should be trying to catch actual criminals instead of creating them. The Department of Defense should be required to account for all of the money that passes through its hands. Human values take precedence over financial values. The Environment is where we live and if we don't take care of it our children will pay the price. There is no such thing as a self-made man. All wealth arises from the cooperative efforts of many people, and should be shared accordingly. If we allow a human to be born, we accept a certain level of responsibility for the well-being of that person, just as parents have a responsibility to provide for their children. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sun Nov 28 23:51:49 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:51:49 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41AA6495.8090803@solution-consulting.com> Very thoughtful comments. The key here is that welfare state politics is a long-term experiment, with some serious consequences if youth do lose the desire to work. Like the cartoon about two scientists, one is saying, "It very well may produce immortality, but it will take forever to test it!" Hannes Eisler wrote: > Living in a welfare state myself I have a few comments. > First, we have to distinguish different groups. One group consists of > people who cannot help themselves: mentally ill, retarded, alcoholics, > junkies, etc. > To be brutal: I don't want to see them running around on the street > and perish. > But also as a fellowman I want to help them, not privately but by > gladly paying taxes. > Second: The welfare state's intention is to redistribute your (own) > income over your life cycle. An example: You get paid a certain amount > for every child (from your taxes) as long as children are dear (in > more than one meaning); when they are grown up and do not cost anymore > your taxes are considered a repayment. This is valid for all citizens, > though no personal humiliation. It works automatically. > Sickness is something similar; you pay only a part of the costs of > visits to physicians and medicines. However, as a healthy individual > you can earn money and pay taxes, so the government (i.e., the > taxpayers) may make a profit. > Finally there is a group whose income does not cover their living > expenses, or people who cannot handle money. Again, part of them may > have gotten into some kind of trouble, say having become a victim to a > fraud, and need some monetary help. For them there is another kind of > social welfare; they have to ask the pertinent authority in person > with all the entailing humiliation. But this is only a small part of > the Swedish welfare state. > But there is some trouble ahead. Many young people (according to > interviews) don't place work as central in their lives as their > parents and grandparents did. And many people claim to be sick when > just feeling bad (not an outright cheat) which raises the amount of > costs to unbearable high levels. > We shall see how the welfare state will develop. As yet cannot Sweden > be compared to the pre-Thatcher UK as Lynn Johnson described it. > I may add: when I was about ten years old I thought it a shame to work > for money--note: not to work in itself, but to earn money for a living. From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 00:02:37 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:02:37 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] the welfare state Message-ID: <01C4D563.AED9E290.shovland@mindspring.com> I doubt that the existence of a social safety net has much effect on the will to work. Sure people work to survive, but Maslow still means something. I suspect that the highest levels of achievement have very little to do with money. Many people such as great teachers function at a very high level for relatively little money. As one rich man said, once you have that first million, every succeeding million means less and less. Then why continue? Because it's no longer the money. It may very well be the satisfaction of doing things. It may be that only a small percentage of mentally ill people can never satisfy their hunger for money. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 3:52 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] the welfare state Very thoughtful comments. The key here is that welfare state politics is a long-term experiment, with some serious consequences if youth do lose the desire to work. Like the cartoon about two scientists, one is saying, "It very well may produce immortality, but it will take forever to test it!" Hannes Eisler wrote: > Living in a welfare state myself I have a few comments. > First, we have to distinguish different groups. One group consists of > people who cannot help themselves: mentally ill, retarded, alcoholics, > junkies, etc. > To be brutal: I don't want to see them running around on the street > and perish. > But also as a fellowman I want to help them, not privately but by > gladly paying taxes. > Second: The welfare state's intention is to redistribute your (own) > income over your life cycle. An example: You get paid a certain amount > for every child (from your taxes) as long as children are dear (in > more than one meaning); when they are grown up and do not cost anymore > your taxes are considered a repayment. This is valid for all citizens, > though no personal humiliation. It works automatically. > Sickness is something similar; you pay only a part of the costs of > visits to physicians and medicines. However, as a healthy individual > you can earn money and pay taxes, so the government (i.e., the > taxpayers) may make a profit. > Finally there is a group whose income does not cover their living > expenses, or people who cannot handle money. Again, part of them may > have gotten into some kind of trouble, say having become a victim to a > fraud, and need some monetary help. For them there is another kind of > social welfare; they have to ask the pertinent authority in person > with all the entailing humiliation. But this is only a small part of > the Swedish welfare state. > But there is some trouble ahead. Many young people (according to > interviews) don't place work as central in their lives as their > parents and grandparents did. And many people claim to be sick when > just feeling bad (not an outright cheat) which raises the amount of > costs to unbearable high levels. > We shall see how the welfare state will develop. As yet cannot Sweden > be compared to the pre-Thatcher UK as Lynn Johnson described it. > I may add: when I was about ten years old I thought it a shame to work > for money--note: not to work in itself, but to earn money for a living. _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 29 00:18:43 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:18:43 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare In-Reply-To: <20041126181722.37956.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041126181722.37956.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <41AA6AE3.7090101@solution-consulting.com> I teach an MBA course on Problem Solving, and use Joe Versus the Volcano to illustrate various problems and their analysis. In the scene "This is a real scene" where Tom Hanks/Joe and Meg Ryan/Angelica are looking out over Los Angeles, Angelica talks of suicide. Joe says that if we do what we are most afraid of doing, our lives work. Angelica: You mean, stop taking my father's money and leave LA? Joe: See! You know what it is you really want to do. Angelica's response to Joe illustrates the dilemma of unearned income. Later in the movie, Meg Ryan as Patricia learns that Joe turned down unearned intimacies with her sister, Angelica, and she knows something about Joe from that. But you didn't deal with my point about my own experience in working with those receivintg welfare, and the degrading effects it has. Like Angelica, they thought they had no other choice, until the Clinton-Republican alliance welfare reform of 1994 or 6, and they had to go to work. Unlike your example of people working in degrading conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the dole. People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere. The dole creates an illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the welfare gods. One's energies are centered around keeping the dole going instead of achieving something, as Joe Banks tells Angelica Graynamore. This clearly is a personal position, one I confess comes from my culture, but one that seems to have borne positive fruit (more people are working post welfare reform). I believe in reducing welfare and creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group. Howard has spoken to this point many times, the delirious joy of the crowd responding to what you do, whether it is to sing or invent a pocket fisherman. Then we are most alive, most energized. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >But I still believe welfare does allow a greater >degree of freedom than being forced into a work >program in which there is little choice of the type of >job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day >for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. > But you are free to leave any moment, and many do. >Having a safety net that allows you to structure your >own time (or at least pick from a broad range of >training and employment options) does give a greater >degree of freedom. > > --That sounds like an ideological position, and let's Yes, you are correct, it is ideological, based on cultural mores. >assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true >for some and not others?) Are there ways of having >people earn their safety net income, without depriving >them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who >had gotten used to working for employers who were >bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They >were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could >make the same argument about a system which has a >permanent low-wage class, that you make about the >welfare system. > >I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn >an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job >market ignores the psychological impact of such an >experiment, just as you worry about the psychological >impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to >recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're >playing with the lives of human beings when we >abruptly change the system. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 00:56:01 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:56:01 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare Message-ID: <01C4D56B.24C454C0.shovland@mindspring.com> I don't object to workfare, but what has happened in welfare reform is that many people are working several low-wage jobs just to survive and they are leaving their kids unattended because they can't afford day-care and the welfare reform programs didn't consider that. What would be wrong with using tax money to employ some welfare mothers to provide day care so that other mothers could work? Awhile ago Republicans in Congress refused to release money for extended unemployment benefits because they thought that people should get jobs. The problem was, there were no jobs to be gotten. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:19 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare I teach an MBA course on Problem Solving, and use Joe Versus the Volcano to illustrate various problems and their analysis. In the scene "This is a real scene" where Tom Hanks/Joe and Meg Ryan/Angelica are looking out over Los Angeles, Angelica talks of suicide. Joe says that if we do what we are most afraid of doing, our lives work. Angelica: You mean, stop taking my father's money and leave LA? Joe: See! You know what it is you really want to do. Angelica's response to Joe illustrates the dilemma of unearned income. Later in the movie, Meg Ryan as Patricia learns that Joe turned down unearned intimacies with her sister, Angelica, and she knows something about Joe from that. But you didn't deal with my point about my own experience in working with those receivintg welfare, and the degrading effects it has. Like Angelica, they thought they had no other choice, until the Clinton-Republican alliance welfare reform of 1994 or 6, and they had to go to work. Unlike your example of people working in degrading conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the dole. People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere. The dole creates an illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the welfare gods. One's energies are centered around keeping the dole going instead of achieving something, as Joe Banks tells Angelica Graynamore. This clearly is a personal position, one I confess comes from my culture, but one that seems to have borne positive fruit (more people are working post welfare reform). I believe in reducing welfare and creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group. Howard has spoken to this point many times, the delirious joy of the crowd responding to what you do, whether it is to sing or invent a pocket fisherman. Then we are most alive, most energized. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >But I still believe welfare does allow a greater >degree of freedom than being forced into a work >program in which there is little choice of the type of >job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day >for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. > But you are free to leave any moment, and many do. >Having a safety net that allows you to structure your >own time (or at least pick from a broad range of >training and employment options) does give a greater >degree of freedom. > > --That sounds like an ideological position, and let's Yes, you are correct, it is ideological, based on cultural mores. >assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true >for some and not others?) Are there ways of having >people earn their safety net income, without depriving >them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who >had gotten used to working for employers who were >bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They >were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could >make the same argument about a system which has a >permanent low-wage class, that you make about the >welfare system. > >I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn >an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job >market ignores the psychological impact of such an >experiment, just as you worry about the psychological >impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to >recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're >playing with the lives of human beings when we >abruptly change the system. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00007.html >> << File: ATT00008.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 00:57:52 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:57:52 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare Message-ID: <01C4D56B.66D09860.shovland@mindspring.com> The other thing your example points to is that the unearned income of rich kids is just as demoralizing as the unearned income that welfare mothers get. Are you in favor of abolishing trust fund babies? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:19 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare I teach an MBA course on Problem Solving, and use Joe Versus the Volcano to illustrate various problems and their analysis. In the scene "This is a real scene" where Tom Hanks/Joe and Meg Ryan/Angelica are looking out over Los Angeles, Angelica talks of suicide. Joe says that if we do what we are most afraid of doing, our lives work. Angelica: You mean, stop taking my father's money and leave LA? Joe: See! You know what it is you really want to do. Angelica's response to Joe illustrates the dilemma of unearned income. Later in the movie, Meg Ryan as Patricia learns that Joe turned down unearned intimacies with her sister, Angelica, and she knows something about Joe from that. But you didn't deal with my point about my own experience in working with those receivintg welfare, and the degrading effects it has. Like Angelica, they thought they had no other choice, until the Clinton-Republican alliance welfare reform of 1994 or 6, and they had to go to work. Unlike your example of people working in degrading conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the dole. People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere. The dole creates an illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the welfare gods. One's energies are centered around keeping the dole going instead of achieving something, as Joe Banks tells Angelica Graynamore. This clearly is a personal position, one I confess comes from my culture, but one that seems to have borne positive fruit (more people are working post welfare reform). I believe in reducing welfare and creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group. Howard has spoken to this point many times, the delirious joy of the crowd responding to what you do, whether it is to sing or invent a pocket fisherman. Then we are most alive, most energized. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >But I still believe welfare does allow a greater >degree of freedom than being forced into a work >program in which there is little choice of the type of >job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day >for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. > But you are free to leave any moment, and many do. >Having a safety net that allows you to structure your >own time (or at least pick from a broad range of >training and employment options) does give a greater >degree of freedom. > > --That sounds like an ideological position, and let's Yes, you are correct, it is ideological, based on cultural mores. >assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true >for some and not others?) Are there ways of having >people earn their safety net income, without depriving >them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who >had gotten used to working for employers who were >bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They >were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could >make the same argument about a system which has a >permanent low-wage class, that you make about the >welfare system. > >I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn >an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job >market ignores the psychological impact of such an >experiment, just as you worry about the psychological >impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to >recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're >playing with the lives of human beings when we >abruptly change the system. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00007.html >> << File: ATT00008.txt >> From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 01:02:54 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:02:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare Message-ID: <01C4D56C.1ADA60C0.shovland@mindspring.com> And the other thing your story does is to refer to the Self Actualization level rather than the Survival Level. You have to survive before you can actualize. Throwing people off welfare and into a world where there are no good jobs brings them to the brink of starvation, not actualization. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:19 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare I teach an MBA course on Problem Solving, and use Joe Versus the Volcano to illustrate various problems and their analysis. In the scene "This is a real scene" where Tom Hanks/Joe and Meg Ryan/Angelica are looking out over Los Angeles, Angelica talks of suicide. Joe says that if we do what we are most afraid of doing, our lives work. Angelica: You mean, stop taking my father's money and leave LA? Joe: See! You know what it is you really want to do. Angelica's response to Joe illustrates the dilemma of unearned income. Later in the movie, Meg Ryan as Patricia learns that Joe turned down unearned intimacies with her sister, Angelica, and she knows something about Joe from that. But you didn't deal with my point about my own experience in working with those receivintg welfare, and the degrading effects it has. Like Angelica, they thought they had no other choice, until the Clinton-Republican alliance welfare reform of 1994 or 6, and they had to go to work. Unlike your example of people working in degrading conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the dole. People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere. The dole creates an illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the welfare gods. One's energies are centered around keeping the dole going instead of achieving something, as Joe Banks tells Angelica Graynamore. This clearly is a personal position, one I confess comes from my culture, but one that seems to have borne positive fruit (more people are working post welfare reform). I believe in reducing welfare and creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group. Howard has spoken to this point many times, the delirious joy of the crowd responding to what you do, whether it is to sing or invent a pocket fisherman. Then we are most alive, most energized. Lynn Michael Christopher wrote: >But I still believe welfare does allow a greater >degree of freedom than being forced into a work >program in which there is little choice of the type of >job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day >for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. > But you are free to leave any moment, and many do. >Having a safety net that allows you to structure your >own time (or at least pick from a broad range of >training and employment options) does give a greater >degree of freedom. > > --That sounds like an ideological position, and let's Yes, you are correct, it is ideological, based on cultural mores. >assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true >for some and not others?) Are there ways of having >people earn their safety net income, without depriving >them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who >had gotten used to working for employers who were >bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They >were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could >make the same argument about a system which has a >permanent low-wage class, that you make about the >welfare system. > >I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn >an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job >market ignores the psychological impact of such an >experiment, just as you worry about the psychological >impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to >recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're >playing with the lives of human beings when we >abruptly change the system. > >Michael > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00007.html >> << File: ATT00008.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 29 01:48:35 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:48:35 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare In-Reply-To: <01C4D56B.66D09860.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4D56B.66D09860.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <41AA7FF3.4020809@solution-consulting.com> Two posts: first post, I agree. Creativity is key to making these things work. I am not a republican apologist, and am deeply disappointed with the republican majority in the congress now. Pork as bad and as deep as any chicago democrat ever dreamed of. I am opposed to all sorts of welfare, from sugar subsidies that harm domestic candy producers to egregious oil depletion allowances and on an on. Bush is a big disappointment there. That's why I am very intrigued by the flat tax proposals coming from the libertarians. No tax deductions whatsoever. This post: absolutely. Unearned income corrupts, extravagant unearned income corrupts extravagantly. Read The Millionaire Next Door which contains heart breaking examples of how unearned income ruins children. I see it in my own neighborhood. A good friend is heartbroken over how he compensated his kids so they didn't have to suffer as he did. But his suffering redeemed him. He is a success. The kids are not. We cannot outlaw trust funds. The money is not mine, so I cannot control what happens to it, but people are completely stupid to give their kids anything except bare essentials. That's how I raised four splendid children, none in therapy, none in jail, none on drugs, blah blah. Enough bragging. Also: In the past year there was an experiment that showed that people winning ten dollars on a video game experienced a surge of dopamine activity, saying to the brain, "That was great, pay attention." When people played the video game, didn't win, but were given ten dollars anyway, there was no pleasure center activity. Mother nature wants us to work for our supper. Lynn Steve Hovland wrote: >The other thing your example points to is that >the unearned income of rich kids is just as >demoralizing as the unearned income that >welfare mothers get. > >Are you in favor of abolishing trust fund babies? > > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:19 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare > > I teach an MBA course on Problem Solving, and use Joe Versus the >Volcano to illustrate various problems and their analysis. In the scene >"This is a real scene" where Tom Hanks/Joe and Meg Ryan/Angelica are >looking out over Los Angeles, Angelica talks of suicide. Joe says that >if we do what we are most afraid of doing, our lives work. > Angelica: You mean, stop taking my father's money and leave LA? > Joe: See! You know what it is you really want to do. >Angelica's response to Joe illustrates the dilemma of unearned income. > > Later in the movie, Meg Ryan as Patricia learns that Joe turned down >unearned intimacies with her sister, Angelica, and she knows something >about Joe from that. > > But you didn't deal with my point about my own experience in working >with those receivintg welfare, and the degrading effects it has. Like >Angelica, they thought they had no other choice, until the >Clinton-Republican alliance welfare reform of 1994 or 6, and they had to >go to work. Unlike your example of people working in degrading >conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the >dole. People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they >see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere. The dole creates an >illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the >welfare gods. One's energies are centered around keeping the dole going >instead of achieving something, as Joe Banks tells Angelica Graynamore. > This clearly is a personal position, one I confess comes from my >culture, but one that seems to have borne positive fruit (more people >are working post welfare reform). I believe in reducing welfare and >creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive >and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group. >Howard has spoken to this point many times, the delirious joy of the >crowd responding to what you do, whether it is to sing or invent a >pocket fisherman. Then we are most alive, most energized. >Lynn > >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>But I still believe welfare does allow a greater >>degree of freedom than being forced into a work >>program in which there is little choice of the type of >>job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day >>for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. >> >> >> > >But you are free to leave any moment, and many do. > > > >>Having a safety net that allows you to structure your >>own time (or at least pick from a broad range of >>training and employment options) does give a greater >>degree of freedom. >> >> >> >> > >--That sounds like an ideological position, and let's > >Yes, you are correct, it is ideological, based on cultural mores. > > > >>assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true >>for some and not others?) Are there ways of having >>people earn their safety net income, without depriving >>them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who >>had gotten used to working for employers who were >>bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They >>were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could >>make the same argument about a system which has a >>permanent low-wage class, that you make about the >>welfare system. >> >>I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn >>an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job >>market ignores the psychological impact of such an >>experiment, just as you worry about the psychological >>impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to >>recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're >>playing with the lives of human beings when we >>abruptly change the system. >> >>Michael >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. >>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00007.html >> << File: ATT00008.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 29 02:19:02 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:19:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] GOP vs. Dems In-Reply-To: <200411281900.iASJ0M018179@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041129021902.69148.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> >>This afternoon when I was planting bulbs it occurred to me that the Republican party may soon arrive at a position similar to that of a football team that runs the same successful plays too many times. Eventually their opponents learn to see them coming and the plays no longer work.<< --Republicans will have several problems. One you just mentioned. Certain propaganda techniques depend on the presence of an enemy that can be demonized, and Repubilicans did a great job of demonizing liberals and playing up fear of terrorism, attaching it to the idea that liberals are weak, spineless, wavering, flip-flopping and every other epithet hurled at high school nerds who read books. Those techniques tend to stop working after a while, because people start questioning the epithets. Are liberals really "weak"? Are Democrats necessarily liberals? After a while, people take those questions seriously, instead of going with a knee-jerk emotional response. The public also cycles from liberal to conservative and back again, and when the pendulum swings, rhetoric which worked last cycle begins to flop. Another issue will be the tendency of groups which define themselves in opposition to other groups to allow corruption to set in on their own side. Republicans closing ranks around Tom DeLay (which moderate Republicans as well as Democrats find distasteful) is one example. Another is the tendency of systems, regardless of who is involved, to form incestuous links and dysfunctional feedback loops. Regulatory agencies gradually become stacked with people from the industries regulated, until there is a scandal involving unsafe drugs, etc. If one party is supposed to be in charge of those systems when they fail, that party gets the blame. Then there's the issue of results. A party that gains a lock on power must provide results, not just theory and rhetoric. That's easier said than done, and the administration can't blame liberalism for its own failures if it does not deliver on what it promised. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 02:19:42 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:19:42 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare Message-ID: <01C4D576.D4CB3180.shovland@mindspring.com> The flat tax may be a good idea, but I think there are so many powerful people who benefit so much from special tax provisions that they will probably be the chief opponents of a flat tax. A flat tax might mean they would go from paying no tax to paying quite a bit, by their lights. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 5:49 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare Two posts: first post, I agree. Creativity is key to making these things work. I am not a republican apologist, and am deeply disappointed with the republican majority in the congress now. Pork as bad and as deep as any chicago democrat ever dreamed of. I am opposed to all sorts of welfare, from sugar subsidies that harm domestic candy producers to egregious oil depletion allowances and on an on. Bush is a big disappointment there. That's why I am very intrigued by the flat tax proposals coming from the libertarians. No tax deductions whatsoever. This post: absolutely. Unearned income corrupts, extravagant unearned income corrupts extravagantly. Read The Millionaire Next Door which contains heart breaking examples of how unearned income ruins children. I see it in my own neighborhood. A good friend is heartbroken over how he compensated his kids so they didn't have to suffer as he did. But his suffering redeemed him. He is a success. The kids are not. We cannot outlaw trust funds. The money is not mine, so I cannot control what happens to it, but people are completely stupid to give their kids anything except bare essentials. That's how I raised four splendid children, none in therapy, none in jail, none on drugs, blah blah. Enough bragging. Also: In the past year there was an experiment that showed that people winning ten dollars on a video game experienced a surge of dopamine activity, saying to the brain, "That was great, pay attention." When people played the video game, didn't win, but were given ten dollars anyway, there was no pleasure center activity. Mother nature wants us to work for our supper. Lynn Steve Hovland wrote: >The other thing your example points to is that >the unearned income of rich kids is just as >demoralizing as the unearned income that >welfare mothers get. > >Are you in favor of abolishing trust fund babies? > > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:19 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare > > I teach an MBA course on Problem Solving, and use Joe Versus the >Volcano to illustrate various problems and their analysis. In the scene >"This is a real scene" where Tom Hanks/Joe and Meg Ryan/Angelica are >looking out over Los Angeles, Angelica talks of suicide. Joe says that >if we do what we are most afraid of doing, our lives work. > Angelica: You mean, stop taking my father's money and leave LA? > Joe: See! You know what it is you really want to do. >Angelica's response to Joe illustrates the dilemma of unearned income. > > Later in the movie, Meg Ryan as Patricia learns that Joe turned down >unearned intimacies with her sister, Angelica, and she knows something >about Joe from that. > > But you didn't deal with my point about my own experience in working >with those receivintg welfare, and the degrading effects it has. Like >Angelica, they thought they had no other choice, until the >Clinton-Republican alliance welfare reform of 1994 or 6, and they had to >go to work. Unlike your example of people working in degrading >conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the >dole. People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they >see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere. The dole creates an >illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the >welfare gods. One's energies are centered around keeping the dole going >instead of achieving something, as Joe Banks tells Angelica Graynamore. > This clearly is a personal position, one I confess comes from my >culture, but one that seems to have borne positive fruit (more people >are working post welfare reform). I believe in reducing welfare and >creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive >and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group. >Howard has spoken to this point many times, the delirious joy of the >crowd responding to what you do, whether it is to sing or invent a >pocket fisherman. Then we are most alive, most energized. >Lynn > >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>But I still believe welfare does allow a greater >>degree of freedom than being forced into a work >>program in which there is little choice of the type of >>job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day >>for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. >> >> >> > >But you are free to leave any moment, and many do. > > > >>Having a safety net that allows you to structure your >>own time (or at least pick from a broad range of >>training and employment options) does give a greater >>degree of freedom. >> >> >> >> > >--That sounds like an ideological position, and let's > >Yes, you are correct, it is ideological, based on cultural mores. > > > >>assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true >>for some and not others?) Are there ways of having >>people earn their safety net income, without depriving >>them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who >>had gotten used to working for employers who were >>bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They >>were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could >>make the same argument about a system which has a >>permanent low-wage class, that you make about the >>welfare system. >> >>I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn >>an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job >>market ignores the psychological impact of such an >>experiment, just as you worry about the psychological >>impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to >>recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're >>playing with the lives of human beings when we >>abruptly change the system. >> >>Michael >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. >>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00007.html >> << File: ATT00008.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00001.html >> << File: ATT00002.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 29 04:11:55 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:11:55 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare In-Reply-To: <01C4D56C.1ADA60C0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4D56C.1ADA60C0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <41AAA18B.9000603@solution-consulting.com> Self actualization is a theory that has not stood the test of time, and psychologists today do not use it. There are abundant examples of people at a survival level showing self-sacrifice, C.f., Bouncing Back, by Geoff Norman. It is out of print but in libararies. Your idea that people are thrown off welfare is a straw man, not what really happens. What is the truth is that current welfare systems (depending, I suppose on which state) run out after a period of time, and everyone knows when that is coming. I voluntarily help a family that will always depend on some kind of welfare, but the community here supports them and helps the husband find sheltered workshop employment and supplements his income. The wife works also, again in a sheltered workshop situation. They are happier and more fulfilled by not depending on a dole but feeling that they are earning their way. So my point remains. We are built so as to feel more joy when we contribute to others. Another c.f.: Authentic Happiness by Seligman. See his discussion of increasing joy by increasing your helpfulness to others. lj Steve Hovland wrote: >And the other thing your story does is >to refer to the Self Actualization level >rather than the Survival Level. > >You have to survive before you can >actualize. Throwing people off welfare >and into a world where there are no >good jobs brings them to the brink >of starvation, not actualization. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:19 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare > > I teach an MBA course on Problem Solving, and use Joe Versus the >Volcano to illustrate various problems and their analysis. In the scene >"This is a real scene" where Tom Hanks/Joe and Meg Ryan/Angelica are >looking out over Los Angeles, Angelica talks of suicide. Joe says that >if we do what we are most afraid of doing, our lives work. > Angelica: You mean, stop taking my father's money and leave LA? > Joe: See! You know what it is you really want to do. >Angelica's response to Joe illustrates the dilemma of unearned income. > > Later in the movie, Meg Ryan as Patricia learns that Joe turned down >unearned intimacies with her sister, Angelica, and she knows something >about Joe from that. > > But you didn't deal with my point about my own experience in working >with those receivintg welfare, and the degrading effects it has. Like >Angelica, they thought they had no other choice, until the >Clinton-Republican alliance welfare reform of 1994 or 6, and they had to >go to work. Unlike your example of people working in degrading >conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the >dole. People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they >see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere. The dole creates an >illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the >welfare gods. One's energies are centered around keeping the dole going >instead of achieving something, as Joe Banks tells Angelica Graynamore. > This clearly is a personal position, one I confess comes from my >culture, but one that seems to have borne positive fruit (more people >are working post welfare reform). I believe in reducing welfare and >creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive >and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group. >Howard has spoken to this point many times, the delirious joy of the >crowd responding to what you do, whether it is to sing or invent a >pocket fisherman. Then we are most alive, most energized. >Lynn > >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>But I still believe welfare does allow a greater >>degree of freedom than being forced into a work >>program in which there is little choice of the type of >>job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day >>for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. >> >> >> > >But you are free to leave any moment, and many do. > > > >>Having a safety net that allows you to structure your >>own time (or at least pick from a broad range of >>training and employment options) does give a greater >>degree of freedom. >> >> >> >> > >--That sounds like an ideological position, and let's > >Yes, you are correct, it is ideological, based on cultural mores. > > > >>assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true >>for some and not others?) Are there ways of having >>people earn their safety net income, without depriving >>them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who >>had gotten used to working for employers who were >>bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They >>were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could >>make the same argument about a system which has a >>permanent low-wage class, that you make about the >>welfare system. >> >>I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn >>an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job >>market ignores the psychological impact of such an >>experiment, just as you worry about the psychological >>impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to >>recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're >>playing with the lives of human beings when we >>abruptly change the system. >> >>Michael >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. >>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00007.html >> << File: ATT00008.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 04:49:06 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:49:06 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare Message-ID: <01C4D58B.B3ED4BA0.shovland@mindspring.com> Another problem is how do we keep the number of potential welfare recipients from increasing? I have long thought that if a woman gives birth at public expense she should be sterilized after delivery. Is that a leftist or rightist idea? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:12 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare Self actualization is a theory that has not stood the test of time, and psychologists today do not use it. There are abundant examples of people at a survival level showing self-sacrifice, C.f., Bouncing Back, by Geoff Norman. It is out of print but in libararies. Your idea that people are thrown off welfare is a straw man, not what really happens. What is the truth is that current welfare systems (depending, I suppose on which state) run out after a period of time, and everyone knows when that is coming. I voluntarily help a family that will always depend on some kind of welfare, but the community here supports them and helps the husband find sheltered workshop employment and supplements his income. The wife works also, again in a sheltered workshop situation. They are happier and more fulfilled by not depending on a dole but feeling that they are earning their way. So my point remains. We are built so as to feel more joy when we contribute to others. Another c.f.: Authentic Happiness by Seligman. See his discussion of increasing joy by increasing your helpfulness to others. lj Steve Hovland wrote: >And the other thing your story does is >to refer to the Self Actualization level >rather than the Survival Level. > >You have to survive before you can >actualize. Throwing people off welfare >and into a world where there are no >good jobs brings them to the brink >of starvation, not actualization. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] >Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:19 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list >Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare > > I teach an MBA course on Problem Solving, and use Joe Versus the >Volcano to illustrate various problems and their analysis. In the scene >"This is a real scene" where Tom Hanks/Joe and Meg Ryan/Angelica are >looking out over Los Angeles, Angelica talks of suicide. Joe says that >if we do what we are most afraid of doing, our lives work. > Angelica: You mean, stop taking my father's money and leave LA? > Joe: See! You know what it is you really want to do. >Angelica's response to Joe illustrates the dilemma of unearned income. > > Later in the movie, Meg Ryan as Patricia learns that Joe turned down >unearned intimacies with her sister, Angelica, and she knows something >about Joe from that. > > But you didn't deal with my point about my own experience in working >with those receivintg welfare, and the degrading effects it has. Like >Angelica, they thought they had no other choice, until the >Clinton-Republican alliance welfare reform of 1994 or 6, and they had to >go to work. Unlike your example of people working in degrading >conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the >dole. People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they >see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere. The dole creates an >illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the >welfare gods. One's energies are centered around keeping the dole going >instead of achieving something, as Joe Banks tells Angelica Graynamore. > This clearly is a personal position, one I confess comes from my >culture, but one that seems to have borne positive fruit (more people >are working post welfare reform). I believe in reducing welfare and >creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive >and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group. >Howard has spoken to this point many times, the delirious joy of the >crowd responding to what you do, whether it is to sing or invent a >pocket fisherman. Then we are most alive, most energized. >Lynn > >Michael Christopher wrote: > > > >>But I still believe welfare does allow a greater >>degree of freedom than being forced into a work >>program in which there is little choice of the type of >>job or employer. Being forced to work most of the day >>for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom. >> >> >> > >But you are free to leave any moment, and many do. > > > >>Having a safety net that allows you to structure your >>own time (or at least pick from a broad range of >>training and employment options) does give a greater >>degree of freedom. >> >> >> >> > >--That sounds like an ideological position, and let's > >Yes, you are correct, it is ideological, based on cultural mores. > > > >>assume for a moment that it's true (perhaps it's true >>for some and not others?) Are there ways of having >>people earn their safety net income, without depriving >>them of choice and dignity? I've met many people who >>had gotten used to working for employers who were >>bullies, and it seemed pretty degrading to them. They >>were on drugs, unable to plan ahead, etc. So I could >>make the same argument about a system which has a >>permanent low-wage class, that you make about the >>welfare system. >> >>I think it's reasonable to give people options to earn >>an income. I just worry that forcing people into a job >>market ignores the psychological impact of such an >>experiment, just as you worry about the psychological >>impact of welfare. We have to be humble enough to >>recognize that it's ALL an experiment, and we're >>playing with the lives of human beings when we >>abruptly change the system. >> >>Michael >> >> >> >>__________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. >>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >>_______________________________________________ >>paleopsych mailing list >>paleopsych at paleopsych.org >>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> >> >> >> >> > << File: ATT00007.html >> << File: ATT00008.txt >> >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > << File: ATT00002.html >> << File: ATT00003.txt >> From HowlBloom at aol.com Mon Nov 29 07:12:45 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:12:45 EST Subject: [Paleopsych] conserved stuff in 'junk' DNA Message-ID: <149.39873337.2edc25ed@aol.com> Paul--Your slow-learning alternative interpretation--slow-learning is reserved for potential big breakthroughs tested over aeons instead of minutes, hours, or days, is extremely interesting. I've inserted another twisty comment and some pictures to illustrate it down below. Howard In a message dated 11/28/2004 7:19:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, paul.werbos at verizon.net writes: If the "junk" DNA is more highly conserved than the usual DNA... that's important. It may suggest an interpretation a bit different from what we have been drifting into. Two alternative views of what that datum implies -- A conservative view might be that "what you see is what you get after all," and that the "junk DNA"... is like the glia cells in the brain, which people think supply metabolic support to ALLOW neurons to play the decisive role everyone assumes... hb: add in Eshel Ben-Jacob's work on glia and on the foundation of gel exuded by some bacterial colonies. In Eshel's view, both are distributors of information that help in the parallel-processing, the emergent meta-mind, formed by trillions of processors working in parallel. I've compared what Eshel describes to the zeitgeist of human culture--a summation of the current state of mind, but one pregnant with implications, pregnant with new creative solutions whose parts are aching to be sutured together, sutured together by a mind attuned to the music of their inanimate desire. But could sequences in a linear string really take on this role? Or should we stop thinking of genomes as linear strings? Remember, genomes are twisted, knotted, and tangled--but not randomly--tangled in meaningful ways. Their topology and topography is as important as their linear constituents. The big question with both genes and with "junk dna" may be one Eshel's been raising with his papers on linguistic and contextual meaning. A big part of a genome-sector's meaning may come from which others its rubbing cheeks with. And there's a lot of cheek-rubbing in a knot. Here are a few genomic knots--probably vastly oversimplified: pw: could it be that the nonjunk DNA is as dominant as people have always thought, and that the "junk DNA" is a kind of constant support system... evolved long,long ago and then frozen? The paper you cited says the junk DNA is "highly conserved," but doesn't say whether it is constant across all types of earth life, or just major groups. A totally different view... "high conserved" could just mean slowly changing. In multilayer time-lagged recurrent neural networks... we know we need to have slower learning rates for stuff which is further away from direct empirical testing. New categories of perception evolve more slowly than ... the formation of memories using EXISTING categories, which can be "one-trial memories." _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 117011 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 65396 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 29 13:37:29 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:37:29 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare In-Reply-To: <01C4D58B.B3ED4BA0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4D58B.B3ED4BA0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <41AB2619.5060400@solution-consulting.com> Statist as opposed to dynamist, in the Virginia Postrel scheme (see her book, The Future and Its Enemies). I said earlier that demographics bode ill for the left wing of the Democratic party. Here is a column by a well informed observer, Pete DuPont, on that topic. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110005941 Steve Hovland wrote: >Another problem is how do we keep the number of >potential welfare recipients from increasing? > >I have long thought that if a woman gives birth at >public expense she should be sterilized after >delivery. > >Is that a leftist or rightist idea? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 14:56:48 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:56:48 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare Message-ID: <01C4D5E0.99657410.shovland@mindspring.com> This is a dangerous summary of Republican talking points. Dangerous to the Republicans. As the military says, it is target rich, filled with catch phrases that can be damaged by being associated with negative connotations through cleverly constructed propaganda. I also see it as evidence that they have stopped thinking, whereas at this point their opposition, which does not necessarily include old-time Democrats, is highly motivated to do some deep thinking. I think one of the most noteworthy things about the recent campaign was that the Democrats made no apparent effort to find the pulse of America and speak to it. I understand that the right owns the reptilian emotion of fear, but I think the left can take over the emotion of hunger, and that the actions of the Republicans in the next few years will make that possible :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:37 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare Statist as opposed to dynamist, in the Virginia Postrel scheme (see her book, The Future and Its Enemies). I said earlier that demographics bode ill for the left wing of the Democratic party. Here is a column by a well informed observer, Pete DuPont, on that topic. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110005941 Steve Hovland wrote: >Another problem is how do we keep the number of >potential welfare recipients from increasing? > >I have long thought that if a woman gives birth at >public expense she should be sterilized after >delivery. > >Is that a leftist or rightist idea? > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > > > > > << File: ATT00010.html >> << File: ATT00011.txt >> From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 29 15:11:02 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:11:02 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Link to Bouncing Back Message-ID: <41AB3C06.1070709@solution-consulting.com> Thanks, David, for this link. It is a powerful book. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] welfare Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:01:33 -0800 From: W. David Schwaderer To: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. References: <01C4D56C.1ADA60C0.shovland at mindspring.com> <41AAA18B.9000603 at solution-consulting.com> Self actualization is a theory that has not stood the test of time, and psychologists today do not use it. There are abundant examples of people at a survival level showing self-sacrifice, C.f., Bouncing Back, by Geoff Norman. It is out of print but in libararies. => See: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/0671746359/ref=dp_more-buying-choices_2//104-4450274-6343938?condition=all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Nov 29 15:15:08 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:15:08 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Health care debate In-Reply-To: <149.39873337.2edc25ed@aol.com> References: <149.39873337.2edc25ed@aol.com> Message-ID: <41AB3CFC.9000804@solution-consulting.com> An interesting new idea about health care: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20041129.shtml From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Nov 28 19:28:47 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:28:47 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Green Democrat Values Message-ID: <01C4D53D.6DEFA600.shovland@mindspring.com> Humans should not devour the Earth like a plague of locusts. Budgets should be balanced by a reasonable system of taxation. We should lower the ceiling on wealth if that's what it takes to provide a decent floor. War should be the last resort, not the first. Threats should be anticipated, but cannot be used to justify conquering countries that have not attacked us. Wealth should be produced without exploitation of workers. Money should not be the only motivation for high achievement. Watching TV shows where people commit acts of violence is more harmful to children than watching TV shows where people have sex. People who come to America should make an honest effort to become Americans- learn the language, become citizens. Bilingual education should be abolished because it discriminates against Asian immigrants who are not similarly accommodated. Employers should be punished for hiring illegal aliens at substandard wages. Immigration should be halted until everyone who is here is fully employed. People should not try to feed their souls with material goods. Drug addiction should be seen as a soul problem, not as a crime. Human rights should not be trumped by property rights. We should embrace ecstatic experience, not fear it. We must rapidly adapt to alternative energy to avoid an econonic catastrophe due to petroleum depletion. Technology should not be toxic to humans. The existence of industries such as tobacco that cause significant health problems should not be tolerated. Health care should include care for the soul as well as for the body. Health care should really be health care rather than disease care. Health care should be put under the microscope to find out where all the money is going. Civil liberties should not be restricted in the interests of security. Competent police and intelligence activities should be sufficient to manage crime and other threats. People should not be subjected to invasive searches at airports as long as cargo goes uninspected. Sting operations by all law enforcement agencies should be abolished. We should be trying to catch actual criminals instead of creating them. The Department of Defense should be required to account for all of the money that passes through its hands. Human values take precedence over financial values. The Environment is where we live and if we don't take care of it our children will pay the price. There is no such thing as a self-made man. All wealth arises from the cooperative efforts of many people, and should be shared accordingly. If we allow a human to be born, we accept a certain level of responsibility for the well-being of that person, just as parents have a responsibility to provide for their children. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 16:51:14 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:51:14 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Health care debate Message-ID: <01C4D5F0.96298FB0.shovland@mindspring.com> I think this is cant: "Experts of all ilks agree that one reason health care costs keep rising so rapidly is that consumers have gotten into the habit of making decisions with no regard at all for cost." The average consumer is a passive participant in the health care process. The costs are largely determined by the oligarchical power of the HMO's, insurance companies, and drug companies. This should be placed under the microscope, but they have bribed the Executive and Legislative branches into looking the other way. This is too: "Starting in the New Deal era and in World War II, government provided and encouraged employers to provide social insurance and health insurance that would guarantee benefits and buffer individuals against the workings of the market." I would bet that you could go through all of the enabling legislation and never find any reference to "the workings of the market." The HMO's, insurance companies, and drug companies are the ones who are being buffered against the workings of the market. This formulation also conveniently forgets the basic function of insurance: the pooling of risk. I have seen hospitals gobble up $20,000 in a single day, so the HSA approach is somewhat unrealistic based on our current distribution of personal income. That said, I have heard that the British health care system does not provide heart bypass surgery, and that is a good thing. The scientific evidence is that the benefits of this expensive procedure are temporary. On the other hand, Dean Ornish MD can produce PET-scan evidence that his no-fat vegetarian diet can permanently reverse coronary artery diseae. So this is a way to a better future: the elimination of costly but ineffective treatments, shifting toward an outcome-based approach. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 7:15 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: [Paleopsych] Health care debate An interesting new idea about health care: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20041129.shtml _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 17:25:36 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:25:36 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] helpful explanation of election results Message-ID: <01C4D5F5.62C889F0.shovland@mindspring.com> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 250236 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 29 18:01:18 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:01:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare and the meaning of work In-Reply-To: <200411291726.iATHQI032020@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041129180118.73836.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>I believe in reducing welfare and creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group.<< --I absolutely agree with you that people need a sense that they are contributing something of value to the world. I question whether many minimum wage jobs provide that sense of meaning. I've known too many fast food workers who felt they were doing nothing of real value, working purely for the money, and spending the money on drugs to avoid feeling the alienation of their place in society. I myself have always found it far more rewarding doing volunteer work (even when I really couldn't afford to work for nothing) for people I respected than to work at a job doing something with little real value to the world. I'm also concerned that treating people as if their only value is in serving an economic machine is alienating in itself, more so than being on welfare where time, a precious commodity, is preserved and left for the individual to manage. I do agree that there should be programs to connect people to job training, volunteer programs and community programs designed to provide a sense of meaningful contribution. But many of the people who want to end welfare seem as isolated from the real world of minimum wage work as the "ivory tower academics" they condemn. In order to make changes in a social system (it's as much "social engineering" to end welfare as it was to create it) you have to be in touch with reality on all levels, not rely on economic theories or ideology about what humans need. Every change has a ripple effect, and people who are isolated from realtime feedback can make disastrous decisions, purely because they feel someone else made bad decisions and it's their mission to correct them. Liberal policies are undoubtedly flawed... but that does not automatically mean anti-liberal policies will succeed. The best policy in many areas may be a "states' rights" platform enabling states to experiment and see what works and what doesn't, before institutionalizing changes on the national level. At least then, people can move from one state to another if things go wrong. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 29 18:08:07 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:08:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] job security and freedom In-Reply-To: <200411291726.iATHQI032020@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041129180807.79404.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> >>Being forced to work most of the day for someone who doesn't treat you well is not freedom.<< But you are free to leave any moment, and many do.<< --How free are most people to leave their job at any moment? That seems unrealistic. I've known a lot of people who had to hang on to jobs they hated, jobs which crushed them spiritually, because it was the only job security they had. Obviously if you make a reasonable amount of money, you can afford to quit a job and work on getting another one while you live on savings. But not everyone has that option. Capitalism is a fun game, and one I enjoy (it hasn't profited me a whole lot, but I'm an optimistic type), but I'm wary of forcing people to play my games. I believe there should be some basic safety net, a secure living space and food, for those who for whatever reasons cannot or will not play the game we all believe they _should_ be playing. I know that offends some people's sensibilities, but it may be a lot healthier than some of the alternatives being proposed. It's one thing to think in terms of abstract systems... on a theoretical level I can easily see why decentralized, unregulated capitalism appeals intellectually. But on a real life level, I wonder about the transition, and the effect of forcing people to drastically change their lives and play games they didn't choose. As I said, it's all an experiment, and it is as much social engineering to end welfare as it was to start it. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Nov 29 18:16:23 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:16:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare, freedom In-Reply-To: <200411291726.iATHQI032020@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041129181623.78981.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>Unlike your example of people working in degrading conditions, they felt trapped because they were afraid of giving up the dole.<< --I've known plenty of people who felt trapped in jobs they couldn't leave because there was less security in switching. I don't see how there's a difference. Either way you're leaving the known for an unknown, and giving up a guaranteed income for a situation that may or may not work out. >>People say "Take this job and shove it" all the time, because they see themselves as free. They can work elsewhere.<< --Might depend on your social group. I know tech workers who can do that, because their skills are highly valued. I know others who have less freedom and do NOT feel secure saying "take this job and shove it". >>The dole creates an illusion of a lack of freedom. It is unearned, and one must placate the welfare gods.<< --I'm wondering if people who believe this have actually been on welfare, or if it's just a cultural belief extended into the political realm. I've been on disability, and I felt quite free. I spent my time learning, developing the web design skills I now use to make money, and never felt I had to placate anyone. I did feel a little guilt about relying on money someone else might need more, but I'd feel just as guilty taking a job someone else might need more. I've known several others who were on disability or welfare, and if they were "stuck" it was in the same way others were stuck in low paying service jobs. I appreciate theory as much as any intellectual, and on that level I can see how eliminating welfare or the minimum wage *might* produce eventual positives, but I try not to let abstractions become so powerful that I ignore what's really happening, in real time, on the ground. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 18:26:32 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:26:32 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare and the meaning of work Message-ID: <01C4D5FD.E7315A70.shovland@mindspring.com> I did low wage work when I was young and working my way through school. The value of such work is that it gives you the money you need to buy necessities and it provides an economic base while you are trying to get to what you really want to do. I also know that many people in the bottom rungs have no ambition, and are content just to get by doing as little as possible. They make babies that usually have the same outlook. Lynn mentioned "Joe and the Volcano" in one of his posts. Outside of the jumping scene, my favorite lines in the movie come from the Eddie Albert character, when he talks about the fact that most of the people in this world are asleep. "For the few who are awake, the world is a fantastic place." Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:01 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] welfare and the meaning of work >>I believe in reducing welfare and creating workfare programs because I believe people are more fully alive and vital when they are producing something valuable to the group.<< --I absolutely agree with you that people need a sense that they are contributing something of value to the world. I question whether many minimum wage jobs provide that sense of meaning. I've known too many fast food workers who felt they were doing nothing of real value, working purely for the money, and spending the money on drugs to avoid feeling the alienation of their place in society. I myself have always found it far more rewarding doing volunteer work (even when I really couldn't afford to work for nothing) for people I respected than to work at a job doing something with little real value to the world. I'm also concerned that treating people as if their only value is in serving an economic machine is alienating in itself, more so than being on welfare where time, a precious commodity, is preserved and left for the individual to manage. I do agree that there should be programs to connect people to job training, volunteer programs and community programs designed to provide a sense of meaningful contribution. But many of the people who want to end welfare seem as isolated from the real world of minimum wage work as the "ivory tower academics" they condemn. In order to make changes in a social system (it's as much "social engineering" to end welfare as it was to create it) you have to be in touch with reality on all levels, not rely on economic theories or ideology about what humans need. Every change has a ripple effect, and people who are isolated from realtime feedback can make disastrous decisions, purely because they feel someone else made bad decisions and it's their mission to correct them. Liberal policies are undoubtedly flawed... but that does not automatically mean anti-liberal policies will succeed. The best policy in many areas may be a "states' rights" platform enabling states to experiment and see what works and what doesn't, before institutionalizing changes on the national level. At least then, people can move from one state to another if things go wrong. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Nov 29 22:39:47 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:39:47 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] GAO To Investigate Voting Irregularities Message-ID: <01C4D621.46E42C40.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.politicalsoundoff.com/home/gao-to-investigate-voting-irregula rities.html A group of high-ranking congressional Democrats who had called for a federal probe of the November election announced Tuesday that the Government Accountability Office would investigate irregularities with voting machines and provisional ballots nationwide. That announcement came on the same day that the Democratic Party in Ohio said it would join the recount effort in that state that was initiated by Green and Libertarian party candidates. Both of these developments reflect growing concern with election results and procedures that were first raised by poll watchers and individual voters and then circulated on the Internet. From isaacsonj at hotmail.com Tue Nov 30 09:13:27 2004 From: isaacsonj at hotmail.com (Joel Isaacson) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:13:27 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Microbial brains in New Scientist article Message-ID: Eshel Ben-Jacob is cited in the latter part of this New Scientist article. -- Joel A BILLION BRAINS ARE BETTER THAN ONE New Scientist vol 184 issue 2474 - 20 November 2004, page 34 A single microbe won't have much to say for itself. But put a lot of them together and it's a different story, says Mark Buchanan IN A small dish in a lab at the University of Chicago, millions of bacteria are deliberating among themselves. For hours there is no activity then suddenly, having taken a vote and come to a decision, the bacteria all light up, filling their world with a soft blue glow. Nearby, other bacteria are navigating as a pack. In response to unseen signals, individual bacteria have grown tendrils and gathered together, forming a raft that glides easily over the solid surface. Extraordinary behaviour for bugs? Biologist Jim Shapiro doesn't think so. He watches this sort of thing every day in his lab. And he regards it as yet more evidence that the popular view of microbes is way off track. For most of the two centuries since scientists first peered into the microscopic world, they have viewed life's tiniest members as loners, living individual, independent lives. But Shapiro and other biologists know that there is no such thing as an antisocial microbe. Bacteria, amoebas and yeast are not renowned for their social skills, but Shapiro thinks they should be. Wherever microbes coexist in rich profusion - which is pretty much everywhere, from the scum on a pond to a cockroach's gut - teamwork and cooperation count every bit as much as cut-throat competition. And behind it all stands a talent for communication that is turning out to be far more sophisticated than anyone imagined. Bacteria use a bewildering range of chemical messages not only to attract mates and distinguish friend from foe, but also to build armies, organise the division of labour and even commit mass suicide for the good of the community. Some experts even talk about "microbial language", with its own lexicon and syntax. That is a radical interpretation, but microbes are certainly much cleverer than we thought. They are not just stupid little bags of enzymes, insists Shapiro, but "formidable and sophisticated actors on the stage of life". The idea that microbial communities might be intensely social has been around for about 20 years, but most biologists did not take it too seriously. In the lab, researchers usually keep microbes as prisoners in well-stirred suspensions, which prevents them getting together to form colonies. That is fine for many types of research, but anyone interested in animal behaviour knows that the only way to get a real insight into what creatures do is to study them in their natural settings. And away from the artificial simplicity of the lab, microorganisms adore surfaces. You'll find them almost anywhere, from the hulls of boats and the walls of pipes and drains to the surfaces of ponds, water tanks and living organisms. "Of all the cells that make up the healthy human body," points out biologist Jim Deacon of the University of Edinburgh, UK, "more than 99 per cent are microorganisms living on the skin, in the gut or elsewhere." These surface-dwelling communities, often containing hundreds of distinct species, are known as biofilms. The microbes within a biofilm collectively weave a matrix of sugary polymers called exopolysaccharides that form the physical infrastructure of a slimy microbial city (New Scientist, 31 August, 1996, p 32). The community living within often has a strength and integrity its individual citizens lack. Earlier this year, biologist Staffan Kjelleberg and colleagues at the University of New South Wales in Australia showed, for example, how forming a biofilm can enable bacteria to defend themselves against predators. The versatile bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa thrives in sewage-treatment plants and in the soil, but everywhere it falls prey to voracious protozoans. "On the surface of a pipe," says Kjelleberg, "protozoa move just like vacuum cleaners." He and his colleagues found that colonies of P. aeruginosa could develop into dense biofilms that were resistant to attack. "They form a structure that protozoa find hard to eat," says Kjelleberg. In comparison, colonies of mutant bacteria deficient in the art of biofilm development remained easy prey. The biofilms in these experiments are extremely rudimentary. Natural biofilms - in everything from dental plaque to spoilt food - are so complex that researchers still cannot reproduce their full glory in the lab. Yet by studying microbes in somewhat simplified settings, they are peeking into their social lives and learning how they get it together. Group action One of the most important techniques microbes use to coordinate teamwork is known as quorum sensing. In the laboratory of Bonnie Bassler at Princeton University, a bacterium called Vibrio harveyi shows how it works. These bacteria routinely produce a molecule known as an autoinducer, which they release into the environment. The result under many conditions is precisely nothing. But at a high enough concentration, the autoinducer triggers a chemical response in other V. harveyi, making them glow. The concentration of autoinducer reflects the density of the bacterial population so, when numbers are high enough, the bacteria will spontaneously light up with a dull blue luminescence. So, while V. harveyi will not shine as an individual, it does in a group. Biologists are not yet sure what it gains by this behaviour, but many other bacteria perform similar feats, and in some cases researchers have found out why. Outside the lab, the marine bacterium V. fischeri - a close relative of V. harveyi - often lives in dense colonies on the Hawaiian bobtail squid. The squid gives the bacteria a protected environment in which to multiply and, in return, the bacteria light up, helping to camouflage the squid in its deep-sea habitat. When swimming alone in the sea, the bacteria don't bother to glow - they save their energy. Biologists discovered the basic logic of quorum sensing in V. fischeri in the 1980s. Over the past decade, Bassler and others have learned that most microbes exploit similar tricks. In the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, for example, P. aeruginosa uses quorum sensing to decide when to deploy virulence factors - molecules that ease its entry into tissues or help it to counter host defences. By relying on a system that is only triggered into action when a crucial threshold is reached, the colony avoids stirring up the immune system too early. Instead it assembles a formidable force before launching the invasion proper. When threatened with starvation, the soil-dwelling bacterium Myxococcus xanthus responds with a similarly impressive display of social coordination. When the concentration of autoinducer reaches a critical level, many individuals commit what appears to be socially inspired suicide. The cells disintegrate, releasing raw materials that ensure the survival of a lucky few. These become quiescent spores wrapped within a fruiting body formed of less lucky cells, which gives them a good chance of surviving to germinate when conditions improve. Hundreds of microbes use quorum sensing, but experiments with V. harveyi in particular have revealed the potential flexibility of this communication strategy. Two years ago, Bassler and colleagues discovered that V. harveyi has not just one quorum-sensing circuit but two, and uses them in combination, like tools in a carpenter's workshop, to orchestrate more subtle acts of cooperation. One of the circuits in V. harveyi triggers light production only when it senses a quorum of bacteria of the same species. But the second circuit, operating through a distinct set of autoinducer molecules, is not so picky. It triggers light production when enough bacteria of any species happen to be nearby. "It seems paradoxical," says Bassler, "that these bacteria use two systems when either alone should be sufficient." But she suggests that having two systems might allow V. harveyi to modify their behaviour in subtle ways, depending on whether they are in the minority or the majority in a community of species. Microbial signals are like a real language in that they represent words whose meaning can differ in different contexts The discovery of quorum sensing and its widespread use in the microbial world has ushered in a new view of microbes as highly social creatures. Indeed, the level of cooperation between individuals can be so complex that they act less like a coordinated group of single-celled organisms and more like a microbial "superorganism". Just as multicellular organisms depend on cellular differentiation to create specialised cells to make muscles and nerves, for example, microbial colonies do the same. "You look at these biofilms and you find a lot of differentiation," says Kjelleberg. "They really are like higher organisms." Shapiro points out that even simple colonies of the same species can be highly sophisticated, as cells in distinct regions differentiate to produce what amounts to different tissues. The bacterium Proteus mirabilis swims easily in a liquid using its few whip-like flagella, but individuals cannot move over a solid surface. A colony growing on a surface can, through chemical communication, orchestrate a collective metamorphosis in which many of the bacteria turn themselves into elongated cells covered with thousands of flagella, which they can use to move over the surface. "These cells are sensitive to touch," says Shapiro, "and they like to line up next to one another." The resulting raft of specialised bacteria helps the colony to spread by swarming over surfaces on which ordinary individuals would remain stuck. The swarming bacteria can later return to the normal condition, which is more suited to swimming. Given that quorum sensing allows microbes to talk to one another in order to cooperate, it is not surprising that some organisms have learned how to disrupt their enemies' communication systems. As a saboteur, the bacterium Bacillus subtilis produces a molecule that modifies the autoinducers used by many other bacteria, thereby ruining their effectiveness. And the marine red alga Delisea pulchra, common on the coast of southern Australia, produces chemicals called furanones. Similar to autoinducers, these molecules effectively swamp the receptors of microbes' quorum-sensing systems, jamming communication. "The algae paint their surfaces with these molecules," says Kjelleberg, and so defeat microbial attack. This particular countermeasure turns out to be popular among microbes. "We have a whole freezer full of organisms that do similar things," says Kjelleberg. "There are really a lot of them." Stimulated by this discovery, he and his colleagues have produced synthetic molecules that they are trying to develop into new antibacterial drugs. Unlike conventional antibiotics, these would function not by killing the individual microbes, but by destroying their ability to communicate and cooperate. It's not just outsiders that are bent on subverting the teamwork of social microbes. Sometimes the sabotage comes from within. In any society where you have individuals cooperating for the good of the group, you are likely to get freeloaders who refuse to pull their weight but still enjoy the benefits of being part of a collective. Microbial societies are no exception. Last year, biologists Gregory Velicer and Francesca Fiegna of the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in T?bingen, Germany, witnessed the consequences of cheating in a colony of M. xanthus, which would ordinarily form a "fruiting body" in response to a crisis. Normally, it seems to be a lottery as to which individuals sacrifice themselves and which benefit from the collective response by becoming spores and passing on their genes to the next generation. But when Velicer and Fiegna augmented the colony with a few mutant individuals from populations that could not form fruiting bodies, they found that these mutants contributed less than the normal bacteria to fruiting-body formation, and were more likely to become spores. As well as giving a fascinating insight into the biology of cheating, the study also throws light on one of the classic puzzles of evolutionary biology - why cooperation between individuals persists despite the potential threat from freeloaders. Velicer found that the mutant bacteria contain the seeds of their own destruction. Because they greedily push their own genes into the next generation, the freeloaders proliferated rapidly in the community, displacing cooperators. This outbreak of cheating eventually led to a dramatic population crash, and in some cases the colony perished entirely. This isn't an ideal outcome for anyone, and it is likely that microbes have evolved ways to police cheating and preserve cooperation. How cheaters could be stymied remains a mystery. Velicer points out that a society of microbes might direct extra benefits to those who don't cheat, or might directly punish cheaters. This would probably entail forms of communication that are so far unknown. But he is hopeful of finding them, given the great progress in uncovering the vast and complex world of microbial communication. Velicer is certainly not alone in his belief that there is much more to be discovered about microbial communication. "We fully expect that this is merely the tip of the iceberg," says physicist Eshel Ben-Jacob of Tel Aviv University in Israel. What's more, if Ben-Jacob is correct, microbial communication is more than just an intricate exchange of chemical messages. He believes it is something akin to language. In a recent article, he and his colleagues argue that when other researchers talk about the "syntax" of microbial signals, or their "contextual" meaning, they should consider the possibility that this is more than a metaphor (Trends in Microbiology, 2004, vol 12, p 366). Words and meanings Microbial signals are like a real language, they argue, in that they represent "words" whose meaning can differ in different contexts. As with human language, bacteria possess a lexicon, or vocabulary, of possible signals with which to communicate the various signaling chemicals they produce and recognise, such as those used in quorum sensing. And the meaning conveyed through these signals depends strongly on the semantic context. Bacteria carry internal information reflecting their history as well as current external conditions, and can respond to the same signal in different ways at different times, showing a rich behavioural repertoire. Ben-Jacob's interest in microbes indicates a changing attitude towards Earth's smallest inhabitants. At last people are waking up to the fact that most of life is microscopic, and that the macroscopic bits wouldn't be what they are without microbes. The discovery that these two worlds have much more in common than we thought is intriguing. More and more researchers agree with Ben-Jacob's assertion that microbes have the kind of social intelligence previously considered to be the exclusive preserve of the most intelligent animals. Microorganisms recognise the social groups to which they belong, and readily pick out strangers who might pose a threat. As we find out more, we will perhaps perceive microbes as more like ourselves, or discover the roots of our own social behaviour in the supposedly "simple" microbial world. Perhaps our own ability to talk and communicate, to form teams and root out and punish freeloaders, goes all the way back to our days as bacteria. Mark Buchanan Mark Buchanan is a writer based in Cambridge From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 30 15:00:04 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:00:04 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Microbial brains in New Scientist article Message-ID: <01C4D6AA.3894D980.shovland@mindspring.com> Some of this seems to apply to the discussion of welfare. Although we do have a moral obligation to care for the sick and injured, we don't have a moral obligation to support a large population of heatlhy freeloaders. At the same time, we are not bacteria, so we are not permitted to convert freeloaders into corpses :-) In the old welfare model there was no interest in turning freeloaders into workers. I suspect that with the coming of peak oil we may see a shift back to more labor-intensive, localized production. We may need policies to provide public-sector employment in order to prevent mass starvation. It will be a no work, no eat system for those who are able, and it will be a system that provides health care and child care. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Joel Isaacson [SMTP:isaacsonj at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:13 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: HowlBloom at aol.com Subject: [Paleopsych] Microbial brains in New Scientist article Eshel Ben-Jacob is cited in the latter part of this New Scientist article. -- Joel A BILLION BRAINS ARE BETTER THAN ONE New Scientist vol 184 issue 2474 - 20 November 2004, page 34 A single microbe won't have much to say for itself. But put a lot of them together and it's a different story, says Mark Buchanan IN A small dish in a lab at the University of Chicago, millions of bacteria are deliberating among themselves. For hours there is no activity then suddenly, having taken a vote and come to a decision, the bacteria all light up, filling their world with a soft blue glow. Nearby, other bacteria are navigating as a pack. In response to unseen signals, individual bacteria have grown tendrils and gathered together, forming a raft that glides easily over the solid surface. Extraordinary behaviour for bugs? Biologist Jim Shapiro doesn't think so. He watches this sort of thing every day in his lab. And he regards it as yet more evidence that the popular view of microbes is way off track. For most of the two centuries since scientists first peered into the microscopic world, they have viewed life's tiniest members as loners, living individual, independent lives. But Shapiro and other biologists know that there is no such thing as an antisocial microbe. Bacteria, amoebas and yeast are not renowned for their social skills, but Shapiro thinks they should be. Wherever microbes coexist in rich profusion - which is pretty much everywhere, from the scum on a pond to a cockroach's gut - teamwork and cooperation count every bit as much as cut-throat competition. And behind it all stands a talent for communication that is turning out to be far more sophisticated than anyone imagined. Bacteria use a bewildering range of chemical messages not only to attract mates and distinguish friend from foe, but also to build armies, organise the division of labour and even commit mass suicide for the good of the community. Some experts even talk about "microbial language", with its own lexicon and syntax. That is a radical interpretation, but microbes are certainly much cleverer than we thought. They are not just stupid little bags of enzymes, insists Shapiro, but "formidable and sophisticated actors on the stage of life". The idea that microbial communities might be intensely social has been around for about 20 years, but most biologists did not take it too seriously. In the lab, researchers usually keep microbes as prisoners in well-stirred suspensions, which prevents them getting together to form colonies. That is fine for many types of research, but anyone interested in animal behaviour knows that the only way to get a real insight into what creatures do is to study them in their natural settings. And away from the artificial simplicity of the lab, microorganisms adore surfaces. You'll find them almost anywhere, from the hulls of boats and the walls of pipes and drains to the surfaces of ponds, water tanks and living organisms. "Of all the cells that make up the healthy human body," points out biologist Jim Deacon of the University of Edinburgh, UK, "more than 99 per cent are microorganisms living on the skin, in the gut or elsewhere." These surface-dwelling communities, often containing hundreds of distinct species, are known as biofilms. The microbes within a biofilm collectively weave a matrix of sugary polymers called exopolysaccharides that form the physical infrastructure of a slimy microbial city (New Scientist, 31 August, 1996, p 32). The community living within often has a strength and integrity its individual citizens lack. Earlier this year, biologist Staffan Kjelleberg and colleagues at the University of New South Wales in Australia showed, for example, how forming a biofilm can enable bacteria to defend themselves against predators. The versatile bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa thrives in sewage-treatment plants and in the soil, but everywhere it falls prey to voracious protozoans. "On the surface of a pipe," says Kjelleberg, "protozoa move just like vacuum cleaners." He and his colleagues found that colonies of P. aeruginosa could develop into dense biofilms that were resistant to attack. "They form a structure that protozoa find hard to eat," says Kjelleberg. In comparison, colonies of mutant bacteria deficient in the art of biofilm development remained easy prey. The biofilms in these experiments are extremely rudimentary. Natural biofilms - in everything from dental plaque to spoilt food - are so complex that researchers still cannot reproduce their full glory in the lab. Yet by studying microbes in somewhat simplified settings, they are peeking into their social lives and learning how they get it together. Group action One of the most important techniques microbes use to coordinate teamwork is known as quorum sensing. In the laboratory of Bonnie Bassler at Princeton University, a bacterium called Vibrio harveyi shows how it works. These bacteria routinely produce a molecule known as an autoinducer, which they release into the environment. The result under many conditions is precisely nothing. But at a high enough concentration, the autoinducer triggers a chemical response in other V. harveyi, making them glow. The concentration of autoinducer reflects the density of the bacterial population so, when numbers are high enough, the bacteria will spontaneously light up with a dull blue luminescence. So, while V. harveyi will not shine as an individual, it does in a group. Biologists are not yet sure what it gains by this behaviour, but many other bacteria perform similar feats, and in some cases researchers have found out why. Outside the lab, the marine bacterium V. fischeri - a close relative of V. harveyi - often lives in dense colonies on the Hawaiian bobtail squid. The squid gives the bacteria a protected environment in which to multiply and, in return, the bacteria light up, helping to camouflage the squid in its deep-sea habitat. When swimming alone in the sea, the bacteria don't bother to glow - they save their energy. Biologists discovered the basic logic of quorum sensing in V. fischeri in the 1980s. Over the past decade, Bassler and others have learned that most microbes exploit similar tricks. In the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, for example, P. aeruginosa uses quorum sensing to decide when to deploy virulence factors - molecules that ease its entry into tissues or help it to counter host defences. By relying on a system that is only triggered into action when a crucial threshold is reached, the colony avoids stirring up the immune system too early. Instead it assembles a formidable force before launching the invasion proper. When threatened with starvation, the soil-dwelling bacterium Myxococcus xanthus responds with a similarly impressive display of social coordination. When the concentration of autoinducer reaches a critical level, many individuals commit what appears to be socially inspired suicide. The cells disintegrate, releasing raw materials that ensure the survival of a lucky few. These become quiescent spores wrapped within a fruiting body formed of less lucky cells, which gives them a good chance of surviving to germinate when conditions improve. Hundreds of microbes use quorum sensing, but experiments with V. harveyi in particular have revealed the potential flexibility of this communication strategy. Two years ago, Bassler and colleagues discovered that V. harveyi has not just one quorum-sensing circuit but two, and uses them in combination, like tools in a carpenter's workshop, to orchestrate more subtle acts of cooperation. One of the circuits in V. harveyi triggers light production only when it senses a quorum of bacteria of the same species. But the second circuit, operating through a distinct set of autoinducer molecules, is not so picky. It triggers light production when enough bacteria of any species happen to be nearby. "It seems paradoxical," says Bassler, "that these bacteria use two systems when either alone should be sufficient." But she suggests that having two systems might allow V. harveyi to modify their behaviour in subtle ways, depending on whether they are in the minority or the majority in a community of species. Microbial signals are like a real language in that they represent words whose meaning can differ in different contexts The discovery of quorum sensing and its widespread use in the microbial world has ushered in a new view of microbes as highly social creatures. Indeed, the level of cooperation between individuals can be so complex that they act less like a coordinated group of single-celled organisms and more like a microbial "superorganism". Just as multicellular organisms depend on cellular differentiation to create specialised cells to make muscles and nerves, for example, microbial colonies do the same. "You look at these biofilms and you find a lot of differentiation," says Kjelleberg. "They really are like higher organisms." Shapiro points out that even simple colonies of the same species can be highly sophisticated, as cells in distinct regions differentiate to produce what amounts to different tissues. The bacterium Proteus mirabilis swims easily in a liquid using its few whip-like flagella, but individuals cannot move over a solid surface. A colony growing on a surface can, through chemical communication, orchestrate a collective metamorphosis in which many of the bacteria turn themselves into elongated cells covered with thousands of flagella, which they can use to move over the surface. "These cells are sensitive to touch," says Shapiro, "and they like to line up next to one another." The resulting raft of specialised bacteria helps the colony to spread by swarming over surfaces on which ordinary individuals would remain stuck. The swarming bacteria can later return to the normal condition, which is more suited to swimming. Given that quorum sensing allows microbes to talk to one another in order to cooperate, it is not surprising that some organisms have learned how to disrupt their enemies' communication systems. As a saboteur, the bacterium Bacillus subtilis produces a molecule that modifies the autoinducers used by many other bacteria, thereby ruining their effectiveness. And the marine red alga Delisea pulchra, common on the coast of southern Australia, produces chemicals called furanones. Similar to autoinducers, these molecules effectively swamp the receptors of microbes' quorum-sensing systems, jamming communication. "The algae paint their surfaces with these molecules," says Kjelleberg, and so defeat microbial attack. This particular countermeasure turns out to be popular among microbes. "We have a whole freezer full of organisms that do similar things," says Kjelleberg. "There are really a lot of them." Stimulated by this discovery, he and his colleagues have produced synthetic molecules that they are trying to develop into new antibacterial drugs. Unlike conventional antibiotics, these would function not by killing the individual microbes, but by destroying their ability to communicate and cooperate. It's not just outsiders that are bent on subverting the teamwork of social microbes. Sometimes the sabotage comes from within. In any society where you have individuals cooperating for the good of the group, you are likely to get freeloaders who refuse to pull their weight but still enjoy the benefits of being part of a collective. Microbial societies are no exception. Last year, biologists Gregory Velicer and Francesca Fiegna of the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tubingen, Germany, witnessed the consequences of cheating in a colony of M. xanthus, which would ordinarily form a "fruiting body" in response to a crisis. Normally, it seems to be a lottery as to which individuals sacrifice themselves and which benefit from the collective response by becoming spores and passing on their genes to the next generation. But when Velicer and Fiegna augmented the colony with a few mutant individuals from populations that could not form fruiting bodies, they found that these mutants contributed less than the normal bacteria to fruiting-body formation, and were more likely to become spores. As well as giving a fascinating insight into the biology of cheating, the study also throws light on one of the classic puzzles of evolutionary biology - why cooperation between individuals persists despite the potential threat from freeloaders. Velicer found that the mutant bacteria contain the seeds of their own destruction. Because they greedily push their own genes into the next generation, the freeloaders proliferated rapidly in the community, displacing cooperators. This outbreak of cheating eventually led to a dramatic population crash, and in some cases the colony perished entirely. This isn't an ideal outcome for anyone, and it is likely that microbes have evolved ways to police cheating and preserve cooperation. How cheaters could be stymied remains a mystery. Velicer points out that a society of microbes might direct extra benefits to those who don't cheat, or might directly punish cheaters. This would probably entail forms of communication that are so far unknown. But he is hopeful of finding them, given the great progress in uncovering the vast and complex world of microbial communication. Velicer is certainly not alone in his belief that there is much more to be discovered about microbial communication. "We fully expect that this is merely the tip of the iceberg," says physicist Eshel Ben-Jacob of Tel Aviv University in Israel. What's more, if Ben-Jacob is correct, microbial communication is more than just an intricate exchange of chemical messages. He believes it is something akin to language. In a recent article, he and his colleagues argue that when other researchers talk about the "syntax" of microbial signals, or their "contextual" meaning, they should consider the possibility that this is more than a metaphor (Trends in Microbiology, 2004, vol 12, p 366). Words and meanings Microbial signals are like a real language, they argue, in that they represent "words" whose meaning can differ in different contexts. As with human language, bacteria possess a lexicon, or vocabulary, of possible signals with which to communicate the various signaling chemicals they produce and recognise, such as those used in quorum sensing. And the meaning conveyed through these signals depends strongly on the semantic context. Bacteria carry internal information reflecting their history as well as current external conditions, and can respond to the same signal in different ways at different times, showing a rich behavioural repertoire. Ben-Jacob's interest in microbes indicates a changing attitude towards Earth's smallest inhabitants. At last people are waking up to the fact that most of life is microscopic, and that the macroscopic bits wouldn't be what they are without microbes. The discovery that these two worlds have much more in common than we thought is intriguing. More and more researchers agree with Ben-Jacob's assertion that microbes have the kind of social intelligence previously considered to be the exclusive preserve of the most intelligent animals. Microorganisms recognise the social groups to which they belong, and readily pick out strangers who might pose a threat. As we find out more, we will perhaps perceive microbes as more like ourselves, or discover the roots of our own social behaviour in the supposedly "simple" microbial world. Perhaps our own ability to talk and communicate, to form teams and root out and punish freeloaders, goes all the way back to our days as bacteria. Mark Buchanan Mark Buchanan is a writer based in Cambridge _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From kendulf at shaw.ca Tue Nov 30 17:46:54 2004 From: kendulf at shaw.ca (Val Geist) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:46:54 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system References: <111.3e1ca5f9.2ed959fe@aol.com> Message-ID: <002801c4d704$95300610$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x> Dear Howard, I am about to head for the airpot. However, on the "genetics as intelligence etc.": treat retrovituses a classical parasites, but parasites of chromosomes. Much will fall painlessly into place! Cheers, Val Geist ----- Original Message ----- From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Cc: dranees at compuserve.com Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system Instead of "metagenetics", can I offer an alternative term--geneteams. How do gene teams work together to learn to learn? Which brings us to some other questions whose answers I've been trying to pin down. When did the full suite of modern atoms--the 92 natural elements--become complete? Did the full panoply of modern atoms arrive after the collapse of the first meg-stars, stars that swelled, ignited, then died off very quickly? That first period of star death would have been a mere two million years after the big bang. Or did the complete suite of modern atoms have to wait six or seven billion years until several generations of smaller, longer-living stars had collapsed? More important, when did the first carbon-based MOLECULES appear in this cosmos? We know many of the details and the timeline of nucleogenesis--of the genesis of subatomic particles. But the term "moleculogenesis" doesn't yet exist. Nor does the concentrated study of this topic. At least I've been able to find nothing about it on NASA's absolutely terrific resource, its Astrophysics Data System --http://adsabs.harvard.edu/default_service.html. Another question. At what point does learning and memory first appear in the evolution of the cosmos? Is an atom of iron a summation of a big slice of the history of the cosmos? Has it survived one catastrophe after another, thus demonstrating its adaptive hardiness? In other words, is there memory, learning, and projection of future possibilities at the inanimate level? Then the big question. How long did it take after the genesis of the first simple carbon-based molecules before those molecules learned how to condense information from the past and aim toward an imperialist goal--to take over as much inanimate stuff as possible and turn it into biomass? Competition first appeared as atoms--brand new things in 380,000 abb-- discovered gravity. Greed first appeared when clumps of matter competed to become galaxies, stars, planets, and moons. But there was something new about the greed of massive teams of atoms arranged in twists that could replicate. There was something new about the hunger of the dna-and-cell based teamwork that generates the incredible variations that contribute to the spread of biomass. Paul's words suggest that restlessness and boredom have been a key part of this learning system. I've been calling this a restless cosmos, a driven cosmos, an obsessive compulsive cosmos for a very long time. But Paul is suggesting that we make computer-based learning machines restless too. That we make them try out new possibilities just for the hell of it, just to evade the pain of boredom, the pain of staying precisely the same, the pain of ennui. Paul is on the brink of suggesting that we make computational programs hunger for pop culture, for music and games that test and expand the silicon brain in new ways. Paul is suggesting that genes may be as restless and boredom-prone as Baudelaire, who painted ennui as the ultimate pain. He's suggesting that on the sly, when they're not working, genes play around and dance in leisure time. Or at least that's what Paul's ideas inspire in me. I know that leisure, entertainment, pop culture, art, and play are not useless. I've known it since I began my 20 years of fieldwork in these fields--poetry, art, magazine publishing, and finally popular music. Paul seems to be whispering to me that these cultural expressions may be a stochastic search for new possibilities. And his words suggest to me that genes play games too. They play the sort of musical games--establishment of a theme, then variation on it--that Greg's mechanisms make possible. Paul, my apologies if I've bent your words, but they're extraordinarily evocative. Can you share the Einstein-Bear connection you were pondering? Meanwhile, here comes some relevant material from Instant Evolution. Howard How does biomass invent new body-combinations, new phenotypes? That's what Greg and Eshel's papers make us question. Perhaps the process isn't Darwin's gradualism. Perhaps its Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge's saltation, their big jumps all at once, their punctuated equilibrium. Perhaps it's my "instant evolution". But when I wrote about instant evolution (http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm), I never looked at the underlying genetic mechanism. I simply tried to demonstrate that geneteams work much faster at invention than we think. Meanwhile, Eshel has called for a new view of evolution, one that's "orthoganal to Darwinism". He's called for an approach that doesn't follow the standard lines of argument but steps way outside the boundaries of evolutionary theory as we know it today. Greg's synthesis of work on genes looks like it fits with instant evolution and with the megateams that geneteams make when they work together en masse. Some geneteams work in megateams to learn and to create. Some get inventive and superbrainy via the complex parallel processing that hooks trillions of computational engines, trillions of genomes, together in Eshel's bacterial colonies. Some gene-and-cell-teams seem to get restless, they seem to ache for self-reinvention in Greg's multicellular organisms. That ache is held in check rigorously. Then one day things change, and that ache shows what it was trying to be in private, when it was still restrained. How many of these aches for reinvention are memories of old strategies, old body types, that worked in previous circumstances? How many body-shifts are totally new? We can see the radically new wherever we look in the fossil record. Well, not so radically new. The difference between a tyranosaurus rex and an anolis lizard skittering across a sidewalk in Florida is not that great. The difference between a crab and a fish is huge. But that difference seems to have appeared very quickly in the fossil record. It unfolded during the quick creative burst of the Cambrian era roughly 550 million years ago. (I could be wrong. There may have been an earlier split among the first primitive multicellular ancestors roughly 1.2 billion years ago.) But one way or the other, the change that tossed crustaceans down one path and proto-reptiles down another was swift,and the variations since then on the theme of crustacean and quadruped has been much smaller than we tend to think. Here's more on instant evolution from my four-year-old paper on the subject. What new meaning does the material I gathered take on in the light of what Eshel and Greg have put forth? Howard from http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm INSTANT EVOLUTION The Influence of the City on Human Genes A Speculative Case by Howard Bloom Geneticist Neil Howell, of the University of Texas? Galveston-based Medical Branch, contends that one form of human DNA?that contained in the mitochondria?sometimes makes adaptive shifts in a mere one or two generations. [11] The research with which he hopes to prove this is still in its infant stage. But Howell?s suspicion that genes can be swift gains credibility from the rate of phenotypic change among insects and fish. Here?s an illustrative passage on the subject from my upcoming book, Global Brain: the Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century (John Wiley & Sons, August 2000): If a passel of nearly identical animals is cooped up on a common turf, it frequently splinters into opposing groups which scramble determinedly down different evolutionary paths. E. O. Wilson, who brought attention to this phenomenon forty years ago, called it character displacement. [12] The battle over food and lebensraum compels each coterie to find a separate slot in the environment from which to chisel out its needs. [13] For example a small number of lookalike cichlid fish found their way to Lake Nyasa [14] in Eastern Africa roughly 12,400 years ago. It didn't take long for the finny explorers to overpopulate the place. As food became harder to find, squabbles and serious fights probably pushed the cichlids to square off in spatting cliques. The further the groups grew apart, the more different they became. [15] The details of this process are somewhat speculative, but the result is indisputable. The cichlids rapidly went from a single species of fish to hundreds, [16] each equipped with a crowbar to pry open opportunities others had missed. Some evolved mouths wide enough to swallow armored snails. Others generated thick lips to yank worms from rocks. One diabolical coven acquired teeth like spears, then skewered its rivals' eyeballs and swallowed them like cocktail onions. In the geologic blink of twelve thousand years, what had begun as a small group of carbon copies became 200 separate species--a carnival of diversity. [17] Not only did twelve thousand years suffice to change the genes which gave these fish their body shape and bio-weaponry, that micro-sliver of an eon also provided ample time to rewrite the inborn script of fish psychology. Each new cichlid species was born chromosomally equipped with the hunting or scavenging instincts essential for its new specialty. Then there?s the swarm of bird-biting London mosquitoes which moved into the tunnels of the Underground in roughly 1900 when the city?s half-built subway system was still occupied primarily by construction crews. Once below the sidewalk, the mosquitoes switched from feeding on feathered fliers to gorging on such delicacies as rats, straphangers, and maintenance workers. By the summer of 1998, the subterranean swarms had changed their genes so thoroughly that they could no longer mate with their distant relatives who lived above the pavement of the street. The pesky Tunnel bugs had taken their genome and gone off on their own, forming an entirely new species. [18] In reporting the story, Agence France Presse interviewed Roz Kidman Cox, the editor of BBC Wildlife Magazine, the publication responsible for initially breaking the news to a mass audience. Said Kidman Cox, "The scientists we talked to say the differences between the above and below ground forms are as great as if the species had been separated for thousands of years, not just a century.? [19] A mere one hundred years for a major shift in genes is not the painful crawl invoked by champions of Pleistocene fixation. Instead it is the quick-paced hop that Huxley called saltation. [20] Yet another insect can change its genome twice that fast. It?s the soapberry bug, which has renovated its chromosomes to fit new needs at a pace that?s dizzying?taking not 100 years but a mere 50. From roughly 1900 to 1980 landscapers and city planners in Florida and in Louisiana produced a bonanza for any insect enterprising enough to go after it. The landscape designers imported new breeds of ornamental trees in an effort to help their clients outdo the neighbors or to spruce up a town?s streets. Florida?s sprucer-uppers chose the Golden Raintree (Koelreuteria elegans), which packaged its seeds in a slender pod whose walls were paper-thin. Louisiana?s outdoor decorators went for Koelreuteria paniculata and Cardiospermum halicacabum, whose seeds were stashed in packets with far thicker casings. Soapberry bugs moved in to mine the new arboreal territories. Each developed genes for a proboscis appropriately sized to seize the opportunities. In Florida where the Raintree pods were easily pierced, the proboscises of soapberry bugs were short. This made for easy sipping, thus saving on resources and on energy. In Louisiana, where seeds of the new eye-pleasing trees were protected by thick rind, soapberry bugs developed a proboscis of a rather different kind?long, slender drilling cylinders which made the sipping rougher but could bore through sidewalls of a kind far tougher. Was this really a genetic alteration, or had soapberry bugs whose proboscises were already short or long simply moved long distances, each to the appropriate destination. Genetic testing showed that the specialized bugs had not come from far away, but had evolved from local insects whose proboscises had previously been adapted to harvest the bounty only of the local trees. By checking the dates at which the new greenery had ben brought in, researchers could pinpoint the time it had taken to tweak genes for proboscis length. That span turned out to be a breathlessly brief half a century. [21] So a flick of reproductive time can remake genomes in fast-breeding bugs, but what about in larger beings? In the 1970s, Thomas and Amy Schoener [22] deliberately stranded Anolis sagrei lizards from Staniel Cay on numerous smaller islands in the Bahamas, each with a different sort of foliage. Lizards on islands with stumpy plants adorned with small leaves can operate more efficiently with short hind legs. Lizards on islands whose plants are larger and more luxuriant do better if they have the long legs perches on large leaves and large plant trunks allow, since long legs also increase escape speed when running from the local lizard eaters. Washington University biologist Jonathan B. Losos predicted that over time natural selection would prune the lizards? genes to equip the scattered creatures with the limbs which best fit their needs. But how much time would genetic pruning take? Return trips to the islands revealed it hadn?t taken much time at all. The lizards on each island were soon measurably different. Some managed to diverge genetically from their parent strain in the twitch of a single decade. That?s the equivalent of ten generations?200 years?in human time. Yet according to University of Washington evolutionary ecologist John N. Thompson, even this genetic sprint is painfully slow. Says Thompson, "dozens" of genetic transmutations have been known to take place in a matter of mere decades. [23] Thompson backs up his claims with rather startling facts: ? ?Gene?for?gene coevolution in wild flax and flax rust in Australia has produced large changes in allele frequencies within and among populations over just the past decade alone ? ?The frequency of clones in Potamopyrgus antipodarum snails within a single lake in New Zealand has changed within the past decade through time?lagged selection imposed by a major trematode parasite. ? ?The introduction of myxoma virus into Australia as a biological control agent against rabbits resulted in rapid evolution toward decreased virulence within only a few years.? [24] Thompson explains that one cause of swift genetic change is the sort of race in which one species has to keep pace with its enemies and ecological partners. And lizard expert Jonathan Losos adds that, ? If colonizing populations are displaced into an environment that is often very different from that of their source, they are particularly likely to diverge evolutionarily. ? What?s more, writes Losos, the greater the difference in habitat, ?the greater the magnitude of differentiation.? In a message dated 11/25/2004 10:56:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, paul.werbos at verizon.net writes: Having spent all of about 5 minutes of real thinking about the questions Greg raises... enough thoughts pop into the mind that I doubt I have time to type them all. First -- one of the reasons why the establishment may find it difficult to fully address the questions is that they are very limited in this case in the degree of mathematical abstraction they use. It's a kind of qualitative limitation in how mathematical thinking is used... The neuroscience establishment (which I know much better) has been struggling with similar limitations... maybe a bit harder and a bit more successfully so far... ------ It is interesting to ask: now that we have learned a lot about intelligent systems in GENERAL.. and now that some of us have a reasonable first-order idea of how this maps into the brain.. what about the genetic system? Forgive me for using a new term which sounds a bit pretentious -- "metagenetics." The prefix "meta" has been badly misused lately, but in this case -- what else would be a good single word to refer to the idea of a genetic system which "learns to learn"? ^^^ Part of Greg's message is that we need to understand metagenetics in order to make any sense at all of 97 percent of the human genome. That's a big step, a good one, and an important one. That idea has existed in some form for a long time, but to give it a snazzy new one-word version and focus more attention on it is still a good step. But is there more going on here? A natural way to interpret "metagenetics"... is to think of ... a kind of second-order system which is still designed to perform the same basic functions people think about in genetic algorithms or evolutionary computing: maximizing some kind of fitness function U(w) as a function of a set of weights or parameters w. (Parameters could be anything from body characteristics to behavioral response characteristics .. to anything...) A sophisticated way to explore the space of possible .. genotypes. Back in 1999 (at a plenary talk at CEC99, the IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computing), I challenged people to send me proposals to address a more interesting computational task: to design systems which LEARN to do stochastic search to maximize U(w,X), where w is as before, and X is a set of observed variables available to enhance performance. I have reiterated this in many talks and tutorials... I call this task "Brain-Like Stochastic search." It's very important in engineering, for example; if we use evolutionary search to find the best possible chip design for some task.... it would be good to represent DIFFERENT chip design tasks by a vector X, and then use a system which learns to do better on chip design task in general. For now, it's enough of a challenge to treat X as "exogenous," but someday one could advance to dynamic X... Now: one COULD follow up on Greg's questions by asking whether we can model the genetic system as one which implements "Brain-Like Stochastic Search" with dynamic X. We may ask: to what extent does this richer functional interpretation become essential to understanding the basics of what we really see with the genome? Now -- a certain degree of "stockpiling" can be important even in that limited context. But another question occurs to me today: would it make any sense to go even further, and evaluate the possibility of a still higher level of intelligence in the genetic system? I wonder. In brains, evolutionary computing is certainly far from enough, in any form. (And I suppose I know a few key things about Edelman's work that Edelman doesn't....) In a word -- TIME. Optimizing results INTO THE FUTURE, with anticipation or foresight (both explicit and implicit), is absolutely central to how brains work. Could there be anything like THAT in the genetic system? I wonder... Various types of memory are essential in brains. There are many levels of stockpiling in brains. Could any of THAT be transferrable to the genetic case? I wonder. This morning I was thinking more about Einstein than about Greg... but I suppose such thoughts would be off-topic on this list. Oh, well. Best of luck, Paul _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.802 / Virus Database: 545 - Release Date: 11/26/2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 30 18:18:03 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:18:03 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Gay marriage (pushback proposal) Message-ID: <01C4D6C5.E1B148D0.shovland@mindspring.com> You don't have to look too hard to find out that gay people have existed in all times and all places. Apparently God chooses to make gay people because they serve a special purpose in his Kingdom. If they are good enough for God then they should be good enough for us, and they should be welcome to enter into the sanctity of marriage. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Nov 30 18:26:27 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve Hovland) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:26:27 -0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] The genome at play :-) Message-ID: <01C4D6C7.0E1A3110.shovland@mindspring.com> http://screensavers.home.mindspring.com/Events/FolsomStreetFair/01.html Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Val Geist [SMTP:kendulf at shaw.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:47 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] genetics as an intelligent system << File: ATT00006.txt; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: ATT00007.html; charset = UTF-8 >> << File: ATT00008.txt >> From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Nov 30 19:17:40 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:17:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Paleopsych] gay marriage In-Reply-To: <200411301900.iAUJ0m022086@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20041130191740.75471.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> >>If they are good enough for God then they should be good enough for us, and they should be welcome to enter into the sanctity of marriage.<< --Canada is legalizing gay marriage, and Massachusetts will have it legal for at least another two years. When people see the sky does not fall because of gay marriage, they will re-evaluate the popular argument that it would unravel civilization (the same people making that argument reject arguments about global warming as "lacking evidence"). And in states where gay marriage is banned, civil unions may be an option, which will eventually segue into legalization of marriage. Either way, the evangelical argument will look pretty silly, decades down the road. Often, purity crusades become popular at times of fear, when fear cannot be faced with concrete action. Since people are not being asked to sacrifice anything in particular for the war on terror, and because the threat is so vague and diffuse, they must channel their fear in other ways, by attacking "obscenity" on TV, covering breasts on statues, and banning gay marriage. Among the faithful, there is the belief that God will abandon America to its enemies as it abandoned Israel in the Old Testament, if Americans don't grovel and smash secular idols. Not an enlightened belief, but an astonishingly common one in many parts of the US. It also smacks of "do as I say, not as I do" when states with high divorce rates try to "protect traditional marriage" by banning it for gays, while gay-friendly Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country. People who cannot stop their own lives from unraveling will often try to control others instead. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail