How To Think Correctly

[Mr. Charts]

"in which the EMR can live"

Are you suggesting EMR is alive, oh frugal one?
Why should there have to be a conceptual space pre-Big Bang? Notice the tense of "to be"....
Richard

 

[superfly]

What is the most essential thing to sustain life?

brains=macaroni

 

[Mr. Charts]

Too much Guinness makes people one "n" short in any continuum.
Richard

 

[Mr. Charts]

"brains=macaroni"

Would that be fresh or dried preserved pasta?
Richard

 

[frugi]

Well, a photon waved at me once. Sadly I was trying to take down its particulars at the time, so I missed it by a nanometre.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Well, frugi, did it wave or particle from you.......?

 

[superfly]

"brains=macaroni"

Would that be fresh or dried preserved pasta?
Richard

fresh=you better be ready to survive

 

[new_trader]

What is the most essential thing to sustain life?

brains=macaroni

You don't need brains if you have beauty :cheesy:

 

[superfly]

You don't need brains if you have beauty :cheesy:

BRAINS and beauty-combined-have better odds of survival then standalone brains or beauty

 

[CYOF]

The closest so far is not Guinness - btw Richard, that was very good , and I am glad to see that you know what Slainte means - Good Health.

I now have to go and do some more research before I make a complete ass of myself when I have to give you all the answer, as a little wobbler has now been introduced.

But the overall picture stays the same, and the Marconi hint is really as close as you can get.

The answer will not change - but I need to make sure that some answers are not the same thing, which may be so, for as I said, I really know nothing about anything

Please make sure you give a simple reason for your answer, as most are doing, and this will make it easier for me :idea:

And all dunnos are welcome - for the joy in participation is far greater than the joy of observation.

I will give another clue - but will not divulge my source as of yet - for it will only result in a reduction in the amount of universal brain activity - if someone knows the source then please PM me - for it is sure that you also have something to offer in the way of your interpertation.

It would require 500,000,000 atoms placed side by side to measure one linear inch. A number of atoms equal to twenty-five million times the population of earth must be present in the test tube for a chemist to detect them in a chemical trace. About 125 septillions of atoms are in an inch cube of lead. And we cannot come anywhere near even seeing an atom through a microscope! Yet the atom is as large as our solar system compared to the electrons of which it is composed. All atoms are alike in having one positive central sun of energy around which one or more negative charges of energy revolve. The number of negative electrons each atom contains determines the nature of the so-called “element” of which it is a part. An atom of hydrogen, for instance, is supposed to have one negative electron as a satellite to its positive center. For this reason chemists accept it as a standard of atomic weight. The atomic weight of hydrogen is placed at 1.5. The diameter of an electron is to the diameter of the atom as the diameter of our Earth is to the diameter of the orbit in which it moves around the sun. More specifically, it has been determined that an electron is one eighteen- thousandth of the mass of a hydrogen atom. It is clear therefore that matter is capable of a degree of refinement almost beyond the power of the human mind to calculate. We have not as yet been able to analyze this refinement beyond the electron, and even in getting thus far have had to supplement our physical observation of effects with imagination to cover certain gaps.

The building up of Matter from Electrons has been an involuntary process of individualizing intelligent energy.

Nice to see so many replies .

Go raibh maith agat - this one should be easy also

 

[superfly]

how to use your brains correctly and act accordingly

 

[Mr. Charts]

CYOF,
Your statement,
"It would require 500,000,000 atoms placed side by side to measure one linear inch. A number of atoms equal to twenty-five million times the population of earth must be present in the test tube for a chemist to detect them in a chemical trace. About 125 septillions of atoms are in an inch cube of lead. And we cannot come anywhere near even seeing an atom through a microscope! Yet the atom is as large as our solar system compared to the electrons of which it is composed. All atoms are alike in having one positive central sun of energy around which one or more negative charges of energy revolve. The number of negative electrons each atom contains determines the nature of the so-called “element” of which it is a part. An atom of hydrogen, for instance, is supposed to have one negative electron as a satellite to its positive center. For this reason chemists accept it as a standard of atomic weight. The atomic weight of hydrogen is placed at 1.5. The diameter of an electron is to the diameter of the atom as the diameter of our Earth is to the diameter of the orbit in which it moves around the sun. More specifically, it has been determined that an electron is one eighteen- thousandth of the mass of a hydrogen atom. It is clear therefore that matter is capable of a degree of refinement almost beyond the power of the human mind to calculate. We have not as yet been able to analyze this refinement beyond the electron, and even in getting thus far have had to supplement our physical observation of effects with imagination to cover certain gaps.

The building up of Matter from Electrons has been an involuntary process of individualizing intelligent energy."

...........should not be accepted as factually being completely correct..........is it a quote from a 1950s Reader's Digest? No disrespect, CYOF, but perhaps one or two of the nuclear physicists on this board might want to explain and update it better.....I do have some understanding, but not enough to explain it well myself.
Richard

 

[CYOF]

If more than one thing is essential, there can't be a 'most essential' thing. Anyway, it depends on your frame of reference and what you mean by 'life'. You could say the existence of spacetime is essential, for life as we know it, not to mention a set of physical laws that will sustain life. Matter and energy. Organic molecules that self-replicate (again, for life as we know it). A law that guarantees adaptive heredity, whatever the physical medium of heredity. If you mean life as we know it, huge multi-cellular organisms with metabolisms and nervous systems, then on top of those things, other things become important.

In another frame of reference, you could be thinking of an answer like 'awareness' or 'consciousness', or 'water' or 'sunlight', or 'God' or 'purpose'. It all depends. Your Marconi hint could mean you're thinking of electromagnetic radiation, or motivation/hard work, or invention, or entertainment, or mass communication, or catching criminals, or staying solvent. So many answers, all them good.

I'll go for spacetime if I can only pick one

Whilst many things will be required in order to sustain life, there is one thing that life would not be even possible without.

Frames or reference have nothing to do with immutable Laws - and are only a result of the way we think. No matter how we think, we can not change the immutable Laws - we are governed by them. In order to be in harmony with the Laws, a certain type of thinking - or process of thinking - some of which I have already mentioned, is required.

Another question for all - which is also relevant in understanding the correct thinking process:

Why is a leaf Green and a rose Red?

Le gach beannacht,

 

[trendie]

I was thinking the same, Mr Charts.

I am sure there are quarks, and gluons, and muons, and bosons, etc.
And electrons are supposed to exist as clouds of probabilities.
And its the number of protons that determine the elements characteristics, not the electron.
( I am not a nuclear physicist, but I have seen Dr Strangelove 15 times )

I shall assume, for the time being, CYOF is being metaphorical, or setting the scene, rather than needing to be factually correct.

 

[new_trader]

I was thinking the same, Mr Charts.

I am sure there are quarks, and gluons, and muons, and bosons, etc.
And electrons are supposed to exist as clouds of probabilities.
And its the number of protons that determine the elements characteristics, not the electron.
( I am not a nuclear physicist, but I have seen Dr Strangelove 15 times )

I shall assume, for the time being, CYOF is being metaphorical, or setting the scene, rather than needing to be factually correct.

Don't forget strings

 

[CYOF]

CYOF,
Your statement,
"It would require 500,000,000 atoms placed side by side to measure one linear inch. A number of atoms equal to twenty-five million times the population of earth must be present in the test tube for a chemist to detect them in a chemical trace. About 125 septillions of atoms are in an inch cube of lead. And we cannot come anywhere near even seeing an atom through a microscope! Yet the atom is as large as our solar system compared to the electrons of which it is composed. All atoms are alike in having one positive central sun of energy around which one or more negative charges of energy revolve. The number of negative electrons each atom contains determines the nature of the so-called “element” of which it is a part. An atom of hydrogen, for instance, is supposed to have one negative electron as a satellite to its positive center. For this reason chemists accept it as a standard of atomic weight. The atomic weight of hydrogen is placed at 1.5. The diameter of an electron is to the diameter of the atom as the diameter of our Earth is to the diameter of the orbit in which it moves around the sun. More specifically, it has been determined that an electron is one eighteen- thousandth of the mass of a hydrogen atom. It is clear therefore that matter is capable of a degree of refinement almost beyond the power of the human mind to calculate. We have not as yet been able to analyze this refinement beyond the electron, and even in getting thus far have had to supplement our physical observation of effects with imagination to cover certain gaps.

The building up of Matter from Electrons has been an involuntary process of individualizing intelligent energy."

...........should not be accepted as factually being completely correct..........is it a quote from a 1950s Reader's Digest? No disrespect, CYOF, but perhaps one or two of the nuclear physicists on this board might want to explain and update it better.....I do have some understanding, but not enough to explain it well myself.
Richard

Yes Richard, I agree that modern scientific advancements may have new figures for us, but in reality, it does not change anything. My quote is from before 1950, and is not a readers digest, but I do not disagree with you, as from my recollection of reading many books over the years, many seem to have used my source as a reference for writing their own - remember my article on Montaigne - and his reference to plagiarism - some things never really change!

And yes, all thoughts are welcome, for who knows, maybe we will uncover something that has not been generally well known by an input form other member.

10 heads are sometimes better than one - not in trading of course, where you are better off to just use your own

BTW, what did people think of my interpretation of Botachelli, the singer, or what ever the real name was - sure seems a good way to bring in the millions, especially when you can spend millions on advertising and promotion - but as I said, they are not working fairly and honestly and will eventually falter - nothing more certain - unless of course I am wrong and they are indeed doing a just service for the benefit of all, which I doubt.

 

[new_trader]

Whilst many things will be required in order to sustain life, there is one thing that life would not be even possible without.

Frames or reference have nothing to do with immutable Laws - and are only a result of the way we think. No matter how we think, we can not change the immutable Laws - we are governed by them. In order to be in harmony with the Laws, a certain type of thinking - or process of thinking - some of which I have already mentioned, is required.

Another question for all - which is also relevant in understanding the correct thinking process:

Why is a leaf Green and a rose Red?

Le gach beannacht,

These colours are only a biological concept based on the response of the human eye to certain frequencies of elecrtomagnetic radiation. Humans refer to visible wavelengths of the spectrum as light. The human eye contains only three types of colour receptors called cones which are sensitive to specific wavelengths of red, green, and blue light. We call these the Primary colours and are the only colours we actually see. All other colours are created in the brain by mixing these primary colours in different proportions. This type of mixing is known as additive mixing (as opposed to subtractive mixing with pigment).

 

[CYOF]

Don't forget strings

No, no strings, just my interpretation of something that I feel to be absolutely 100% correct.

But which is better, the discovery, or me just posting some text from a book?

As Montaigne said in 1580:

"there is nothing like alluring the appetite and affections; otherwise you make nothing but so many asses laden with books;"

Now, I am not professing to be a teacher, or better than anyone else for that matter, for I also happen to truly believe in what Socrates said - the realisation that we really know nothing about anything.

Of all the material I am reading, I find the material I am using for this discussion to be by far the greatest benefit - if I want to be a Philosopher I can go and learn Philosophy,etc, etc, but what I really want to do is understand why I end up with what I have in life, and more importantly, how can I change it.

While the History and Philosophy studies are very good for understanding life, the mental aspect is the KEY to changing your life - and to me, that seems the best bet, else I will end up like the majority (general statement), which I do not want to do.

It can be done, by anyone, once one believes in what they are doing.

If you think this is all rubbish, then there is nothing more certain than it will be rubbish for you.

On the other hand, if you think this is beneficial, then you might say, hey, I will try Silence and Visualisation - and lo and behold you suddenly discover some little change in your habits, which in turn will change your character, which in turn will change your circumstances, which in turn will change what you have in life :idea:

Another question:

Why, and how, does a Giraffe have a long neck?

So, the real reason for doing this is based on what I learned from the only Professor that seems to know how to teach students correctly: the purpose of the Socratic dialogue if for improvement, the improvement of the teacher and the student.

Slainte,

 

[CYOF]

These colours are only a biological concept based on the response of the human eye to certain frequencies of elecrtomagnetic radiation. Humans refer to visible wavelengths of the spectrum as light. The human eye contains only three types of colour receptors called cones which are sensitive to specific wavelengths of red, green, and blue light. We call these the Primary colours and are the only colours we actually see. All other colours are created in the brain by mixing these primary colours in different proportions. This type of mixing is known as additive mixing (as opposed to subtractive mixing with pigment).

Correct -or to put in simple language, they Vibrate at different frequencies, which in turn results in different vibrations of the light waves, which results in the different colours in the visual mind as you have aptly described.

Now, as I said, I am no expert, but already from these discussions I am seeing that Vibrations or Frequencies, are very important.

I wonder why?

I will add some more insight into how we might have got out eyes - this will also answer the Giraffe question, which is appropriate in this answer.

Thought builds organic structures in animals and men. The protoplasmic cell desires the light and sends forth its impulse; this impulse gradually builds an eye. A species of deer feed in a country where the leaves grow on high branches, and the constant reaching for their favourite food builds cell by cell the neck of the giraffe. The amphibian reptiles desire to fly in the open air above the water; they develop wings and become birds.

So, we know that what we have here is evolution, but do we really understand how evolution happens, does it just happen, or what?

We know that rocks don't evolve as animals, and we also know that rocks don't have a brain, whereas animals do.

We need not go any further into this, as it is not relevant for the purpose.

What is relevant to know, is that their is a basic difference between how matter is formed, or evolved, and this basic difference is as result of a process that is governed by immutable laws. Evolution has shown us that at some time, due to some combination of something or other, certain matter took on a different atomic structure, and over many billions of years, has resulted in man as we know today, with the main difference in developments due to an ability of certain types of matter to vibrate and form what we now know as the brain. This could get very complicated, and I am sure that we have many experts in this field, but enough is enough.

My crude understanding - but it is good enough for me and for what points I want to get across for discussion.

So, what is the ultimate thing that all life forms would not be able to exist without - not sustain!

 

[frugi]

CYOF, Although it is a charming thought, I don't think desire or 'the effort of reaching' comes into it, though I'm hardly an authority. A genetic mutation occasionally confers an advantage on an organism over its peers, which increases its ability to survive and thus pass on its (upgraded) genes. Regarding giraffes I think there are two theories, one the obvious one of being able to reach more food, the other that it helps them fight more effectively when arguing over mates. You're a chap who obviously likes a good read, so if you haven't already have a look at the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins, both wonderful and far better imho than his crusade against religion. Especially of note is a lucid explanation of how a single cell with some photoreceptive capabilty can develop into a complex eye. Anyway sorry to drag further off topic with a patronising oversimplification. Are you saying that waves of some sort are at the essence of existence?