Comments

  • Does anything truly matter?
    — Cidat

    If conventional beliefs about the beginnings of things are accepted, there is no meaning. If the universe and human consciousness arose via a mindless, random process, there is no meaning. If a God created the universe and ourselves, we are merely a gaggle of slaves to his/hers/its needs of the moment, perhaps useful in some unfathomable manner, but with no more meaning than a manufactured lawn mower.

    However, meaning can arise if some component of the human mind, perhaps a definable version of the "soul" concept, has always existed in some form, and is seeking a modicum of self-awareness via interface with a biological machine.
  • A Question about a "Theory of Everything"
    ↪neonspectraltoast


    Maybe so, but at least I have a better mind than ignorant morons like you whose philosophical insights and intelligent conversations are a victim of intellectual constipation, awaiting a suitable laxative.
  • Mind cannot be reduced to brain
    ↪Pantagruel
    ↪Pantagruel


    Thank you!
  • What afterlife do you believe awaits us after death?
    The problem seems to be, as I've mentioned before in other threads, is that people seem to think that unless science proves X, then we can't know X. My claim is based on knowledge acquired in other ways. For example, I don't need science to tell me that the orange juice I drank this morning is sweet, I've tasted it, or that there is an oak tree in my back yard, I've seen it. And there are other ways that we come to have knowledge, for instance, much of what we know is based on testimonial evidence. While it is true that testimonial evidence can be very unreliable, it can also be very strong. I've put forth my argument in the thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p18 — Sam26

    Sam,
    Evidently I've failed, once again, to competently express the concept I tried to convey. Unfortunately, I do not know of a better explanation. Should you choose to reread what I said and figure out what I meant about the relationship between proofs and paradigms, let's see if we might have a constructive discussion. T. Kuhn would provide a more definitive, and certainly more credible explanation of such concepts. --GL
  • What afterlife do you believe awaits us after death?
    I'll debate anyone who wants to, on the subject of whether there is evidence that consciousness survives death. I'll debate them formally in the debate thread with a moderator. — Sam26

    Evidence for independent consciousness abounds, but the history of honest investigation indicates that evidence is unimportant in the absence of a reasonable and verifiable paradigm into which the evidence fits. Thomas Kuhn explains this in fine philosophical detail, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    For example, despite numerous reports of ball lightening and its seemingly inexplicable behavior, the sightings were dismissed as the delusions of incompetent or lying observers-- until physicists investigating nuclear fusion possibilities developed mathematical theories describing plasmas. Their theories clearly applied to ball lightening. Suddenly, people who reported ball lightening were not written off.

    I would naturally enjoy debating competent interlocutors on the possibility of a useful consciousness paradigm, but that is not possible on this forum without the exclusion of unqualified interference.
  • What afterlife do you believe awaits us after death?
    ↪TheDarkElf


    That would depend upon the particular "soul state," would it not? But whatever state one finds oneself in, or betwixt, an agreed-upon definition of time is a necessary precursor to any sensible answer to your question.

    Personally, I do not believe that time exists as a physical dimension, although it is certainly an oft-useful mathematical tool. I've solved many practical physics problems involving "t" or its derivatives, because they can be interpreted in terms of our actual experiences and measurement methods.

    You might consider an alternative question-- what physical events must transpire in order for a "soul" to change its state of consciousness?
  • What afterlife do you believe awaits us after death?
    ↪TheDarkElf
    I feel like even within the same religions there is a large discrepancy between peoples views on afterlife and I'd love to hear some thoughts. — TheDarkElf

    If you retain sufficient consciousness that you no longer need a body to support it, and can learn to see without eyes, and to communicate via telepathy, you may have the option to remain in your "soul-level" disincorporated state while learning enough to be of useful service.

    Otherwise, whatever passes in you for consciousness will gradually fade, for lack of suitable support mechanisms, whereupon you may be reincorporated in another body to try again. Or, you may be left in a not-self-aware state (a.k.a. death) indefinitely.

    I hope that whichever state we end up in is a function of choices and actions from our life experience, but suspect that much of our fate is randomly determined.
  • Mind cannot be reduced to brain
    ↪Pantagruel


    That is the core of classical Buddhism, which treats soul as an epiphenomenon initially created by a brain, yet capable of retaining consciousness after the brain's demise, whereupon it finds and merges with another brain in the fetal stage or shortly after birth so as to resume whatever passes for a normal life.

    A.I. people have been trying unsuccessfully to get some manifestation of consciousness out of computers, since the sixties. I imagine that some of them try it with serious supercomputers. So the theory you reference has yet to be implemented in practice, after a half century of work by many brilliant researchers, each eager to earn the inevitable Nobel prize and eternal place in the history of science that must follow a success.

    No doubt you've examined Chalmer's "Hard Problem." Would you share your thoughts about it?
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Thank you, Tim, for trying to educate me. It seems a hopeless task. I began reconsidering beliefs about the nature of the beginnings 60 years ago, as a physics student. Now, a few years after failing to recover from a broken back, I'm in the process of dying-- in as ornery a manner as possible.

    Following up your book references (I'm not energetic enough to read a book, these days.) I looked up my own and found that my last book is selling for the ridiculous price of $890 plus shipping. (I can send you a pristine but cheaper copy for $25, free shipping within the US.)

    i also checked out the status of my first book, published under my real name, which seems to have a unique audience. Hardcover copies are selling for $992. Brit paperback versions, $73. Wish there was a way for me to see any of that. Here's a brief review, from Amazon.

    LOVE this book!!!!! I would definitely recommend to anyone, I'm not much of a sci-fi reader I guess you can say, but this book is just SO powerful! It really gets your mind thinking about life and human morals and ethic. I have re-read many times, it's so good!

    I've done some good work in the past but not profited therefrom.

    I'm an arrogant old fart who thinks that philosophy, except for Descartes and a few thoughts from Aristotle and the principles espoused by Mortimer Adler and Thomas Kuhn, is entirely bullshit. My background is physics (a deteriorating science), and I cannot imagine a useful philosophical theory coming from someone ignorant of physics, as are most people on this forum.

    You might consider Kuhn's thoughts on the contributions of disagreeable people. Or not. I'm too tired and old to care.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    So, Occam's Razor is, let's say, problematic as a philosophical principle. But the scientific method is concerned with creating working models of reality, and in that context choosing the model that has the best predictive power with the least complexity seems entirely reasonable.

    Of course the devil is in the details when trying to decide which model actually fulfills these criteria.     — Echarmion

    You make some good sense; nonetheless I'm proposing a different approach that might appear nonsensical by your standards. It is, simply, that we first determine a good principle for evaluating the worth of a scientific concept. Then we can evaluate new concepts according to that standard.

    You might consider this idea in the context of Rupert Sheldrake's thoughts about this, particularly his claim, "Give me a miracle of my choice and I can explain the universe."

    If the Miracle of Choice is sufficiently complex (e.g. the "Singularity" or almighty God) it can indeed be used to explain anything. Why not consider simpler Miracles?

    Whatever, I believe that you and the two other thoughtful individuals on this forum will appreciate Sheldrake, who is a genuine thinker, one who has also mastered the art of intelligent presentation.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    ou will be ignored by most people here. You are a know nothing jerk. — jacksonsprat22

    Please, please ignore me. Thank you.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    I should stop listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson - he glamorizes astronomy to no end. I bet he never had his eye frozen to a telescope. By the way I thought all modern telescopes, especially those used by astronomers, were computerized - no longer requiring the eye to to be in physical contact with an eyepiece. I dunno. :chin: — TheMadFool

    You are correct about modern telescopes, which I played an early role in putting under computer control, beginning with the first astronomical space telescope, precursor to the Hubble instrument. The eyepiece got stuck in the sixties, when I did my hands-on observing.

    There are other reasons for not listening to Tyson. Personally I put him into the "Brilliant Dipshit" category. You might find a pop-science magazine to be a worthy choice, offering a wider perspective.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Change from what? — jacksonsprat22

    Forgive me, please, but I do not have the energy or time needed to educate philosophers in basic principles of physics. The internet, plus time and study, can be helpful in getting you to a point where this conversation might be interesting.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    The Big Bang is not about something coming into existence. So, it is just an original state from which we explain the history of our universe. — jacksonsprat22

    Incorrect. It is a change of state.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Must've been awesome working with stars. — TheMadFool

    It was interesting. My first look through a serious telescope (36" mirror diameter) opened to a view of something called a "globular cluster," kind of a mini-galaxy tucked into our own Milky Way. Sent chills up my spine.

    There were other chills. Observatories are equipped with large fans that blow outside air into the dome, because if the dome was warmer than the outside, air from within passing upward in front of the telescope would shimmer, distorting the image.

    The observatory was located in one of our northernmost states. We were lucky to get 50 decent observing nights per year, and half of those were in midwinter. One night, an astronomer got his eyeball too close to the sighting eyepiece. It stuck. The instrument's equatorial drive was on and could not be turned off from his location, meaning that the eyepiece to which he was attached would continue to move at our planet's rotation rate. Luckily he had a controller in hand and was able to compensate for the automatic drive until someone showed up in the morning and poured some warm water over the eyepiece.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Since we cannot even determine what "the real universe" is...that would be an impossible job. And for certain, at this time we cannot determine what "the real universe" is.

    So there is no way to use Russell's SUGGESTION on this problem.     — Frank Apisa

    Drat! Then I'm at an impasse. After a half-century of trying to express unconventional ideas I've learned that without some standards, some basis for the evaluation of those ideas, there is no point in even expressing them

    Perhaps we can resolve this, given that you are wise enough to have seen the flaws in Occam's dullish razor. Would a history of that principle, beginning with Aristotle's original version and its subsequent revisions be of value?

    I'd also invite you to re-evaluate my proposal. I did not propose that we must understand the core realities about the properties of any "real universe," nor did I use that term. Russell proposes only that when trying to understand any aspect of our universe, we utilize whatever physics we already know about it, rather than attempt to understand it on the basis of invented religious/philosophical beliefs.

    I find this an excellent principle. All it says is that we know a fair amount about physics. Even if there is more to learn, why not apply the knowledge we have to the problem at hand?
  • Mind cannot be reduced to brain
    The OP and subsequent comments seem to regard "mind" as an entity separate from the brain, repeating Descartes' mistake of conflating the concepts of soul and mind.

    Consider the possibility that the "soul" is a potentially conscious entity that is insufficiently powerful to achieve consciousness without guidance, and is integrated with a human brain for assistance in the process. Thus, what we think of as "mind" is the result of soul and brain working together, a function rather than an independent entity.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    My initial response was: As you put it there, it IS stupid. But that has more to do with the way you presented it than to the binary choice you were attempting. — Frank Apisa

    I did my best to present the options in a pejorative style, so as to accentuate their faults. That does not make them inaccurate.

    [quote}The binary choice, as I see it is:

    1) A GOD created everything we humans call "the universe" and everything in it. The GOD has no creator, but is an eternal being. (The fact that we human cannot discern a need for (or desire for) a universe is immaterial. We are merely the dominant life form on a rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy...in a sea of other galaxies.

    ...OR...

    2) There is no GOD...and everything that we humans call "the universe" came into existence via an event which may or may not be The Big Bang.

    We have to recognize that what we humans call "the universe" may be just a part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...and, in fact, may be just a tiny part of EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. (We can handle the infinite regression later.)

    If we can start from there...I'd like to hear the next step of your thesis.

    If you deem that we cannot start from there...I'd like to hear why you suppose that.

    This is interesting.[/quote]

    I propose that both choices are mistaken, on the grounds that they are different wordings of the same functionally identical concept-- the absurd notion that a universe which operates by the physical interaction of two different things, each manifesting, an opposing force to the other, could have arisen from nothing, without any force involved whatsoever.

    This weekend I'll return to work. Before I do so, I'd like to hear your comments about Russell's criterion for evaluating ideas:

    From a synopsis of an essay---- "Mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell proposed: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.” Or in the context of the essay—

    Let's figure out how the universe began by using the real information— the physics— that we actually know about it, instead of an unverifiable hypothesis derived from the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders."
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    his is what comes to mind.

    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ol1ge     — Wayfarer

    Nothing comes up. Please don't waste my time with bad links. Thank you. Good luck with your writing project.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Endings and beginnings are all beholden to a flawed conception of time. Personally I feel two already extant worlds collided. — neonspectraltoast

    Please go away and find a thread or forum that cherishes ignorant crackpots.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Am I supposed to expect something different, something closer to the truth, in Eastern or Southern or Northern philosophy? :chin:

    Telling you what to expect is beyond my pay grade.


    You wrote:
    "I agree that hypothesizing a god is unscientific for it, by positing a noncorporeal entity, is unfasifiable. However, the big bang theory is, I believe, the current best fit for observational data we have. It goes without saying that scientific hypotheses are all tentative and subject to review in the light of new evidence. This probably isn't your main concern here. I just put it there to impress upon you that scientific theories are not sacred cows, above criticism and so, attacking a theory in it is both expected and welcome provided you have good reasons to do so."

    I worked in astronomy for 20 years, back when the stupid big bang theory was being generated, and studied both Gamow and Hoyle's arguments before analyzing them with astronomers, often over a few beers. You are probably unaware of the flaws in big bang theory at the physics level, and the dreadful kludges introduced to kind of make it work. Study "inflation theory."

    Like most people ignorant of physics, you base your opinions on agreement. Credentialed scientists have agreed the BB theory is actually useful, so you do too? Then what are you doing in a philosophy forum?

    How about thinking for yourself and explaining why a so-called physical singularity containing all the matter and energy in the universe, plus the laws and principles needed to make a universe work, is functionally different from the God notion? Else, there is no value in further conversations between us.
    --GL     — TheMadFool
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    I do not agree with Tim on lots of things, but your response to him was unnecessarily insulting...and not the kind of reply that will encourage people to discuss your ideas with you. You ought really to tone that shit down.

    In any case, on your specific comment: "I suspect that this shared mistake was the consequence of adherence to a fundamentally stupid philosophical principle known as 'Occam's Razor.'"...
    ...I have argued in other threads here that it is a toss-up for me whether Occam's Razor or Pascal's Wager is the most useless item ever put forward by any philosopher.

    So we are generally in agreement on that.     — Frank Apisa

    Frank,
    Yes, I was a little hard on Tim. Late in a bad day and too well lubricated. No regrets, nonetheless. I do not want to waste time in conversations with ignorant and opinionated people. In the absence of a forum that allowed an OP to exclude individuals from his thread, the best I can do is discourage them from posting. Tim is a sandbagger. Others are showing up here all too quickly, like cockroaches coming out of the woodwork at night.

    Good that you disapprove of Occam's razor. Are you aware that it originated with Aristotle, in a different and better form, and was subsequently tweaked by brilliant nitwits like Ptolemy before William of Okham screwed it up for good? What do you think of Russell's criterion?

    Pascal's Wager is far more useless, IMO, than the razor, simply because it is not used. Except that I put it to use decades ago to ace my only philosophy class by pointing out the Wager's
    significant unconsidered alternative to an instructor who thought it to be a good argument.

    IMO Occam's razor is a dangerous principle, because people actually think of it as a useful criterion.

    Exactly which 4 paragraphs should I be responding to?
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    You ain't gonna last long. — Banno

    I hope that you are right.

    2 minutes ago
    Reply
    Options[/quote]
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Have you not noticed? I am addressing exactly your ideas. Apparently Occam's Razor is not the only thing you don't know about. — tim wood

    There is no point in extending this conversation, until you get a brain transplant. I've no interest in communicating with programmed brains. Good bye.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    You claim something is stupid. In as much as the thing that you claim is stupid has a distinct history and significance, the dismissal of it out of hand is a hallmark of ignorance of that thing and its history and significance. It is as if I claimed the American Revolution was "fundamentally stupid."

    Anyway, you make a claim. I call you on it, and you have no substantive answer. I'll give you a clue. It has originally to do with realism and nominalism. I am also quite aware that it has a watered down modern sense, but in as much as the modern sense has it's own derivative function, it cannot be that that too is "fundamentally stupid."

    But you've made an annoying and inappropriate reply. So put up or quit and retreat.     — tim wood

    Unlike you and your programmed ilk, I am not a traditionalist. Address my ideas or shut up.
  • Simple Argument for the Soul from Free Will
    Conclusion C: The part of us that possesses free will is not physical.
    • This non-physical part is what is typically referred to as the Soul.

    What do you think?     — Samuel Lacrampe

    I think that you need a definition of "soul."
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Sorry for the interruption but how do you know what other people don't know? — Zophie

    From the nature and quality of their questions. I raised 3 offspring who were invited to question everything that engaged their curiosity.

    If someone asks why the sky is blue, or wonders why the colors in a rainbow appear in a common order, I know that they have not studied basic physics.

    You should learn to determine the ignorance level of any person with a single question. Saves time.
  • The Beginnings of Everything
    Are you qute sure you understand Occam's Razor? You must, as you're sure it's fundamentally stupid. But I think you do not. I think you know not what it is, what it's about, nor what it's for. Prove me wrong in a well crafted sentence or two or three. But I think you cannot. — tim wood

    Great. Another philosopher who does not know that he does not know jack shit. Let's begin with you showing that you know anything about the origin and history of Occam's worthless principle. After you fail to do that, I'll correct you and put you on my nit list.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    I've had it happen to me on dozens of occasions.

    Not actually a lot "new" in this world.

    Try not to put the entire meal on the table at one time, Greylorn.

    Pick out the single most important stand-on-its-own element**..and let a few of us hash that around.

    **Even if that one element is just an overview, tiny in scope, so that we know where you want to end up.
    3 minutes ago
    Reply
    Options     — Frank Apisa

    Frank,
    Thank you. Experience has shown that introducing the core ideas at the outset is worthless. But WTF, here they are: The universe, and self-awareness, arose from the inevitable collision of two absolutely simple spaces, each manifesting a single fundamental force, within a third space containing both of them.

    So you know where I'm going, and I've already dumped the meal on the floor. Perhaps you'll understand why I think it advisable to work up to that concept. Perhaps, with assistance, sandbaggers can be discouraged. I'll get to work on a new OP.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    Perhaps it did...but you don't realize it did. They may have been charitable and considered it satire.

    If you think YOU have an explanation of "the origin of creators" that has not found its way into "the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it"...maybe the problem is "the explanation" rather than those intelligent minds.     — Frank Apisa

    That was my first thought. My current presentation is based on that assumption, so I've modified it accordingly from the previous published version. One problem is that lots of people are speed readers, and they are incapable of understanding unique concepts. Likewise, normal readers. I'll try some preliminary introductory material on this forum and see what happens. I anticipate, from previous forum experience, that any topic I try to present via OP will be sandbagged. If that happens, I'll quit.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    Sure, but Frank was discussing the bullshit vs normal distinction (supernatural vs natural), not the artificial vs natural one. — Pfhorrest

    Cool. So Frank was discussing bullshit. Engage him, ignore anything I write. Please. I promise to extend the same favor to both of you. -GL
    Published it or self-published it? — ZzzoneiroCosm

    Both. My first book, published under my real name, netted about $60K back when. The only person I met who'd read it was a prostitute in Der Hague who loved the book (I'd first presented it in novel form, behind a good story. She had read the Dutch translation.) but did not believe that the nerd with a limp dick in front of her (she was female, but without charm) could have written it. So I spent $20 and did not get laid.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    The Internet is natural...so are apples and the notion of unicorns.

    That brings us to the more interesting question. If the gods are natural what natural process created them?


    Oh, that one I can handle. The correct answer to that hypothetical is: I do not know...and I doubt you or anyone else does either. Please see my response on page 1...the second response to Wittgenstein'sd OP question. It is germane to this response.     — Frank Apisa

    Frank,
    You exemplify one of my complaints with philosophers. You attach yourselves to words as if they meant something in and of themselves, as you've done with "natural." That's what Bible thumpers do. Wastes my time trying to deal with such mindless people.

    I prefer to work with the occasional individual who understands the concepts that words can represent.

    As for you last comment, I did not find your page 1 comment any more interesting upon reread, than upon my initial read.

    I do have an explanation for the origin of creators. It is natural. I've published it, but the book did not find its way into the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    ts the Nature of philosophy to disagree . The nature of a philosopher is to argue :) — Colin Cooper

    It is the nature of ordinary, low-IQ humans to argue. (Fords are better than Chevys.) Big deal. So far, philosophers are no better, no different, except for their pretensions to be better.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    Of course not. We can define the terms natural and artificial in terms of personal experience. We cannot define supernatural without waving our hands over some bullshit pile.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    Good lord, l like your energy. I cannot be a philosopher unless l act like one. I am just a spectator. Carnap, Poincaré, Husserl were educated in physics and were philosophers too. The list goes on and on. You're not the first person to take a jab at philosophy. Feynman was famous for ridiculing philosophers and perhaps he was to some extent, right. — Wittgenstein

    Yes, yes, yes!

    The best philosophers were those who knew what they could of physics, beginning with Galileo and Descartes. The subjects are intertwined. A physicist not mindful of philosophy is doomed to be a shitty physicist. A philosopher who has not taken Physics 301 (calculus required) is likely to be an intellectual crap dispenser.

    Feynman disliked philosophers because they were mostly fools, but was certainly a philosopher himself. That's what made him interesting. Consider his interpretation of the three laws of thermodynamics:

    • You can't win.
    • You can't break even.
    • You cannot get out of the game.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    They are both natural.

    Not sure of your reasoning for why one would be more natural, but...go with it if you want.     — Frank Apisa

    Frank,
    Please accept my apologies. I did not include any reasoning-- figured it would be obvious that if "gods" created apples, we know the origin of apples, and that they are not natural. Humans created automobiles, so we can figure out that cars are not natural-- they would not have come into existence without intelligent engineering. Same as for apples.

    That brings us to the more interesting question. If the gods are natural what natural process created them?
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    I would suggest that there is persistent disagreement in philosophy because agreement is not a goal, even an incidental one, of philosophy. Agreement and even disagreement are auxiliary activities, extrinsic criteria that operate precisely where philosophy stops. — StreetlightX

    Nonsense. Philosophy is all about agreement, but the field is dominated by nitwits who know nothing about the mechanics, the physics, of the subject they are discussing. They are as likely to agree on anything as a dozen teenage girls will agree on how to build an Indy car's 650 horsepower engine, or to understand the physics behind the concepts of horsepower and the principles of thermodynamics.

    Plain and simple, philosophers are not qualified to understand things. They have not developed minds capable of solving problems.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural." If they exist, they are as "natural" as apples. — Frank Apisa

    Would you consider the interesting possibility that if "gods" exist, some of them created apples? And that they are therefore more natural than apples?
  • Mind vis-a-vis Soul
    Unless "philosophers" competently define what they mean by "mind" and "soul," what they think about those subjects is about as relevant as your garbage collectors' opinions.
  • Why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy ?
    One problem with philosophy is really a problem with wanna-be philosophers. Consider this excerpt from the OP: "I came across a brilliant paper published in a philosophical journal."

    The writer's concept of "brilliant," as an adjective applied to paragraphs of pseudo-intellectual claptrap says it all.

    Philosophers are not intellectually qualified to understand physics, yet they believe that they can understand the universe and its various manifestations, such as human consciousness, without a passing grade in Physics 101, which most of them are incapable of attaining. Such fools are doomed to irrelevancy.

    Put more simply, in hopes of engaging a few philosopher's attention-- philosophers are about as qualified to understand any aspects of the universe, themselves included, as Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd in a think tank full of carrots.

    GL
Home » Greylorn Ell