text:
User talk:Emma~enwikibooks

Art History
Thanks for writing some of the Ancient Art section in the Art History book. Much appreciated. If you want to see this book nominated as the Collaboration of the Month, please vote for it, on Collaboration_of_the_Month/September_2005_voting. Once again, thanks for the contribution. - Serge 10:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Emma. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Emma~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emma~enwikibooks


text:
User:Emortal

Emortal has a bachelors degree from the University of the Witwatersrand with majors in Information Systems and Marketing.

He is currently employed at a software security company.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Emortal


text: Template:TrigBoxOpen

title: Template:TrigBoxOpen


text: Template:TrigBoxClose

title: Template:TrigBoxClose


text:
User:Nichalp

w:User:Nichalp

title: User:Nichalp


text:
User:Risk

I'm an Artifcial Intelligence student. I contribute to the Prolog book and the Cookbook.

Seasonality tables

title: User:Risk


text:
Template:Example

This template takes care that a textbox is displayed, which is titled "example", possibly followed by a brief description in brackets. Below the title appears the main text body of the example. If there is an addition to the title, it precedes the main text body in the template markdown. For instance, the source code produces the following textbox:

On the other hand, if there is only a single parameter that is transmitted to the template, then it will be interpreted as the main body of text of the example. This is exemplified in the source code

If the text contains additional markup it must be the second paramater.

producing the following textbox:

tr:Şablon:Örnek

title: Template:Example


text:
User:Pisethkem

PISETHKEM កែម ពិសិដ្ឋ ケム ピセット

title: User:Pisethkem


text:
Wikijunior talk:Big Cats/Leopard

I have found a good distribution image on Wikmedia Commons but aren't sure about its copyright, does anybody know? --Bjwebb 12:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If the material is created by Wikipedia contributors, then it is in the public domain. Such are the terms that Wikipedia offers to contributors who may prefer that their contributions are in the public domain. --66.231.41.57 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikijunior talk:Big Cats/Leopard


text:
Template:Proof

Proof:

title: Template:Proof


text:
User:SV Resolution

About Me
I am more active at Wikipedia. I am new to the Wiki. I sail. I am a parent, a spouse, and a scientist. Here are my areas of expertise:
 * PhD in Chemical Physics -- thesis on Quantum Chemistry
 * Basic Knot-tying
 * Sailing (10 years day-sailing on the Chesapeake)

I have been working on

 * Wikijunior Solar System -- Some fact-checking, but mostly making it easier to read for 8 to 11 year-olds.

About Wikijunior

 * Wikijunior Main Page Says "the Beck Foundation approached the Wikimedia Foundation" (slight details), and that "The website that is accessible to kids will not be identical to the website accessible to contributors. That will avoid having kids who are just trying to do their homework get caught up in flame wars, personal attacks, and other assorted nonsense (you know exactly what I mean). " This would be a GREAT idea.  So far, there is no division between "working area" and "fit to be seen by kids" area.

 * About the Proposal, which was prepared by Danny Wool. He has a Grants Q&A page.
 * Announcement of Wikijunior grant from Beck Foundation
 * Angela confirms that the The John and Frances Beck Foundation of Chicago has funded this project

The John and Frances Beck Foundation
from http://becklit.org/beck.php, as of October 052005

About The Beck Foundation
The purpose of the Beck Foundation is to initiate and support projects that effectively promote literacy and learning among children youth, and adults. To accomplish this purpose, the Foundation provides financial assistance to registered not for profit cultural, educational, religious institutions, and individuals who use the Educational Practices Booklets of the International Bureau of Education for teacher training and for those who provide free downloadable reading material.

We are interested in exploring projects that are capable of efficiently reaching thousands of school age children and their teachers through the use of technology and non-traditional learning settings.

John and Frances Beck
John and Frances Beck had long careers in the field of teacher education. Their lifelong efforts were devoted to assisting teachers, tutors, and parents in the field of reading and language development. Their Foundation reflects those efforts by providing, through the internet, free, downloadable learning material: stories, books, and lesson plans, suitable for children and students from preschool through grade 9.

Contacting the Beck Foundation
''from http://thebeckfoundation.org, which now seems to be defunct. According to Google's July 202005 cache, it used to say''

The Beck Foundation C/O Catherine M. Ryan Bank of America 231 S. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60697 beckfoundation@thebeckfoundation.org

Some Details of the Project

 * A name is chosen and then announced
 * A logo is created
 * A character is suggested
 * and created -- voting is still going on (2005-08-28)

Experimentation
I am experimenting with new templates in my  sandbox

*

title: User:SV Resolution


text:
Chinese (Mandarin)/Pinyin Pronunciation/Exercises

Exercises
Some exercises to help you with this process:

Here are the answers:


text:
French/Appendices/List of authors

Middle ages

 * Chrétien de Troyes (around 1135 - around 1183)

16th century

 * Francois Rabelais (around 1483 or 1494–1553)
 * Pierre de Ronsard (1524–1585)
 * Louise Labé (a.1526 - a.1565)

17th century

 * René Descartes (1596–1650)
 * Pierre Corneille (1606–1684)
 * Jean de La Fontaine (1621–1695)
 * Molière (1622–1673)
 * Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)
 * Charles Perrault (1628–1703)
 * Jean Racine (1639–1699)

18th century

 * Marivaux (1688–1763)
 * Montesquieu (1689–1755)
 * Voltaire (1694–1778)
 * Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)
 * Denis Diderot (1713–1784)
 * Beaumarchais (1732–1799)

19th century

 * François-René de Chateaubriand (1768–1848)
 * Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850)
 * Victor Hugo (1802–1885)
 * Alexandre Dumas (1802–1870)
 * Prosper Mérimée (1803–1870)
 * George Sand (1804–1876)
 * Alfred de Musset (1810–1857)
 * Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867)
 * Gustave Flaubert (1821–1880)
 * Jules Verne (1828–1905)
 * Alphonse Daudet (1840–1897)
 * Émile Zola (1840–1902)
 * Paul Verlaine (1844–1896)
 * Henri Bergson (1859–1941)
 * Edmond Rostand (1868–1918)

20th century

 * Paul Claudel (1868–1955)
 * Marcel Proust (1871–1922)
 * Guillaume Apollinaire (1880–1918)
 * Jean Cocteau (1892–1963)
 * Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894–1961)
 * Jean Giono (1895–1970)
 * Marcel Pagnol (1895–1974)
 * André Breton (1896–1966)
 * Jacques Prévert (1900–1977)
 * André Malraux (1901–1976)
 * Raymond Queneau (1903–1976)
 * Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980)
 * Robert Merle (1908–2004)
 * Nicolas Bouvier (1929–1998)
 * Georges Perec (1936–1982)
 * Antoine Marie Roger de Saint-Exupery (1900–1944)
 * Albert Camus (1913–1960)
 * Colette (1873–1954)
 * Anaïs Nin (1903–1977)
 * Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986)

Links
List of French authors in the French Wikipedia.

title: French/Appendices/List of authors


text:
Chess/Variants/Random Opening Chess

Computers are able to defeat even expert human Classical Chess players, partly because of their reliance on a database of openings. Fischer Random Chess is one alternative; however, computers will soon have a strong database of openings for all 960 possible starting positions. Random Opening Chess is a chess variant in which it is not possible to compile a database of openings, because there are too many possibilities, even for computers. Random Opening Chess includes all the charm of Classical Chess, save for the openings.

On the diagram at the right you can see one of the possible setups, likely set by experienced chess players with a feeling for the harmony of chess. However, you can also create much more wild and unique opening positions possible only in Random Opening Chess. Note that in this setup, both players are able to castle on both sides.

Random Opening Chess is a chess variant. It is based on Classical Chess, but has some similarities with Problem Chess and Go.

There are not many differences in the rules, you will still enjoy Random Opening Chess if you like the beauty of Classical Chess. In Random Opening Chess you use the same chess board, the same chess pieces and even the same rules as in Classical Chess. The only difference is the starting positions. A game of Random Opening Chess starts with an empty chess board.

The rules are simple. First set up an empty chess board as in Classical Chess, with a white square on the bottom right. Game play starts with white pieces. White Player puts one white piece on the empty chess board. He can choose any white piece.
 * If he chooses pawn, he can put it on any square in the second, third or fourth row.
 * If he chooses any other piece than a pawn (knight, bishop, rook, queen or king) he can put it on any square on the board.

Then it's black's turn. He can put his first piece on any empty square on the board.

 * If he chooses pawn, he can put it on any free square in the fifth, sixth or seventh row.
 * If he chooses any other piece than a pawn (knight, bishop, rook, queen or king) he can put it on any free square on the board.
 * If the opposite king is already on the board, he is not allowed to attack it.
 * He is not allowed to put his own king under attack.

Play continues with players alternating setting pieces. After all 32 pieces are set, the game continues as with the Classical Chess rules.

Note that:

 * Bishops must be set on opposite colored squares.
 * You can castle if the kings and rooks are in proper position and they didn't move (As per Classical Chess rules.)
 * You can also use the en-passant rule if positioning allows it.

title: Chess/Variants/Random Opening Chess


text:
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Places/Chamber of Secrets

General Overview
At the time of his departure from Hogwarts, after a falling out with the other three founders of the school, Salazar Slytherin is supposed to have created a chamber, placed a monster within it, and sealed it so that only his true heir could open it. In the centuries since that time, this "chamber of secrets" has been sought many times, but never found.

Extended Description
The Chamber was in fact opened, approximately fifty years before the time of the Harry Potter series, by Tom Riddle (who later styled himself as Lord Voldemort). At that time, the monster within the Chamber, a basilisk, killed a girl (Moaning Myrtle); this put the school on the verge of closing down, because it was obviously unsafe to keep students there. The threat of being forced to leave the school was sufficient to cause Riddle to re-seal the chamber. Riddle was as fond of his "home" as Harry was. Riddle managed to frame Rubeus Hagrid and Aragog as being the Heir and the monster respectively; as the Chamber was not then re-opened, and no more victims fell to the basilisk, Riddle's version of events became accepted as fact by all except, perhaps, Professor Dumbledore.

In Harry's second year, Ginny Weasley re-opened the Chamber; however, it was not on her own that she did this. We find out in the last chapters of the book that Ginny was at the time enslaved by a "memory" of Tom Riddle. Ginny re-opens the chamber on six occasions that we are aware of.
 * When Harry is serving his detention with Professor Lockhart, he hears the voice of the basilisk.
 * On Hallowe'en, as Harry is leaving the Deathday Party, he hears the Basilisk again. Following the sound, he encounters the Petrified Mrs. Norris.
 * When Harry is in the Hospital Wing following the removal of the bones in his arm by Professor Lockhart, Colin Creevey is brought in to the Hospital Wing, Petrified.
 * Harry trips over the Petrified Justin Finch-Fletchley and blackened Nearly Headless Nick shortly after leaving the library, where he had been met with severe suspicion.
 * On his way to a Quidditch match, Harry hears the voice of the basilisk again, which prompts Hermione to head off to the library to research something. Hermione and Penelope Clearwater are Petrified as they leave the library.
 * Tom Riddle has Ginny enter the Chamber herself so that he may use her life force to re-animate himself.

Harry's final re-opening of the Chamber and defeat of the basilisk should have cleared Hagrid's name; it did secure his release from Azkaban, where he had been consigned when it was thought that he was once again opening the Chamber.

The key to opening the Chamber is Parseltongue; one must say "open" to the entrance in Parseltongue for it to open. The ability to speak to snakes has been linked to Slytherin's descendants, thus the belief that only the true heir of Slytherin can open the Chamber.

Ron and Hermione re-enter the chamber in Harry's seventh year; knowing that Basilisk venom will destroy a Horcrux, and having a Horcrux they need to destroy, Ron, who has twice now heard Harry pronounce the word "open" in Parseltongue, opens the Chamber by imitating the sound of the word. When Harry sees them, they are carrying the destroyed Horcrux and a great stock of Basilisk fangs.

According to J. K. Rowling's instructions to the film-makers for Chamber of Secrets, the chamber itself is located under the lake on the Hogwarts grounds. Owing to this fact, one must now realise where the water in the chamber of secrets originated.

Analysis
We mentioned above that it seemed that Professor Dumbledore had apparently had his doubts about whether Hagrid had been the one who opened the Chamber. We see these doubts expressed shortly after Colin Creevey is brought into the Hospital Wing. In conversation with Professor McGonagall, after examining Colin's destroyed camera, Dumbledore states that the Chamber has been opened once again. We are never told how he reached this conclusion, but it is a safe guess that something similar to the damage to Colin's camera had happened when the Chamber had been opened fifty years earlier. We note that while Dumbledore may recognize the effects, he likely does not yet know the cause. Professor McGonagall asks who has opened the chamber, to which Dumbledore responds that the question is not "who," but "how." Dumbledore does not, apparently, know where the Chamber is or how it was opened, but has come to the conclusion, either upon seeing the writing or at some earlier date, that the legend, that says the Chamber can only be opened by the true heir of Slytherin, is fact. He has also decided, possibly tentatively, that Riddle is that heir. The remaining soul of Riddle, now known as Voldemort, is believed to be in Albania, but Dumbledore knows that Voldemort's soul can ride on other people, as happened in the previous year with Professor Quirrell. Dumbledore's concern at this point is that there may be someone else, a student or teacher, who has, like Quirrell, fallen under Voldemort's spell. Dumbledore may also believe that there is some other denizen of the school who is able to open the Chamber, but that seems less likely.

A key point in this book is the ability to speak to snakes. Parseltongue is widely believed to be a marker of Slytherin forebears. As a result, Harry is believed to be an heir of Slytherin once it is revealed that he can speak to snakes. This is exacerbated by the fact that Harry is unsure of his ancestry; he cannot ask his parents if there is any chance he was descended from Salazar Slytherin. However, as Parseltongue is assumed to be a hereditary Slytherin ability, it only makes sense that the Chamber created by Slytherin would open when addressed in Parseltongue.

Questions

 * 1) We are told that Salazar Slytherin lived a thousand years or so ago, and presumably created the chamber then. While castles of the era did have interior toilets ("garderobes") in the Muggle world, indoor plumbing first appeared in England barely two hundred years ago. Suggest a reason that the mark of Slytherin, that opened the passage to the Chamber, could have been placed on a faucet. Could it be a clue for the heir of slytherin?

Greater Picture
As mentioned, only a Parselmouth can open the Chamber, and it is widely believed that the ability to speak Parseltongue is only passed to the heirs of Slytherin. As an heir of Slytherin, Tom Riddle could certainly be expected to speak Parseltongue, and so he is able to open the Chamber. Harry, with a piece of Tom's soul, is equally able to speak the language, and apparently Dumbledore has learned it, although Dumbledore did not try to find the Chamber. One must wonder why he did not; as a teacher at the school the first time the Chamber was opened, he must have had all the clues that Harry was working with. Perhaps he did not learn Parseltongue until much later in his life, and time had made the need to find the Chamber less pressing.

Ron and Hermione later managed to open the Chamber; in need of something to destroy the cup Horcrux, they visited the Chamber to retrieve some Basilisk fangs, which apparently still had sufficient venom to destroy the Horcrux. Ron had been present at Harry's initial opening of the Chamber, and when Harry opened the locket Horcrux, another artifact of Slytherin's which would open only when addressed in Parseltongue, and simply parroted the sounds Harry had made to open the locket, in order to open the Chamber.


text:
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Places/Spinner's End

General Overview
The house at Spinner's End, a gloomy house with a book-lined parlour, is the home of Severus Snape.

Extended Description
We first see this house when Narcissa Malfoy, followed by Bellatrix Lestrange, her sister, visit Snape in an attempt to get Snape's promise that he will help Narcissa's son Draco with the mission that has been set for him by the Dark Lord. We find Snape in residence, along with Peter Pettigrew, who has been sent to Spinner's End to assist Snape, and is most annoyed that Snape treats him as a servant. Pettigrew does try to listen in on their conversation, but Snape, knowing he is there, fires a spell through the bookcase and into the secret staircase where Pettigrew is hiding, sending him away.

We later find out that Snape is not the only character from the books in this particular down-at-its-heels mill town. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we learn that Snape had been friends with Lily Evans (who later became Harry's mother), and had known Petunia Evans (Harry's Aunt Petunia) as well.

Analysis
We never learn much beyond the fact that Spinners' End is overshadowed by a large factory smoke stack, and that the entire neighbourhood is very run-down. From Snape's memories in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we learn that Snape grew up in an impoverished family; the descriptions of this, his childhood home, seem to be of a piece with this. It is uncertain whether Snape's childhood home was planned out in any detail before we are first introduced to it in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as it could have been as easily sketched in to fit Snape's character, as his character could have been designed in part to have sprung out of this background.

One fan site has put together a reasonably compelling argument that Spinner's End is actually located in the north of England, near Manchester. Factors contributing to this argument are the winding river (suggesting plains), the fact that the river is polluted and evidently has a tow path or similar flat area alongside, stated distance from London, lack of gentrification, cobblestone streets, and brick terraced houses. They further point to Snape's word use (describing Mundungus Fletcher as "smelly", and use of the term "dunderhead"), and his abrasive character as being characteristic of the North, where rudeness, called "being blunt" is considered a sign of honsety.

Greater Picture
It is uncertain how completely Snape's childhood was defined when the first few books were written. We do know that Snape's childhood was mapped out to some extent as early as the start of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, as Petunia refers then to a conversation that she had with Snape; and we believe that it had been planned, to some extent, even earlier than that, as the relationship between Lily and Snape is a critical part of Snape's personality and relationship with Harry in particular, and Gryffindor House in general. While it is clear that Snape and the Evans family must have lived in the same town, given Snape's early and unrequited love for Lily, we cannot know when the environs of Spinners' End were finalized; it is, however, reasonable to guess that Snape's character would have to be at least partly shaped by poverty, which would require that the necessary frame for Spinners' End be in place from the beginning of the series.


text:
Art Tutorials/General Concepts/Shape

Shape is fundamental principal of art. One can simplify any figure (humans, buildings, etc.) into simple shapes to assist in their drawings. For example, an artist might start drawing a human with an oval for the head, a cylinder for the neck, two rectangles for the body, etc.

title: Art Tutorials/General Concepts/Shape


text:
Art Tutorials/General Concepts/Line

Lines are a fundamental principal in art. In drawing especially, lines make up every figure and shape in the image. There are many types of lines, such as straight lines, squiggly lines, and zig-zags.

Line Weight
Line weight is the thickness of a line. Thicker lines can be made by using tools with higher thicknesses, and applying more pressure. Lighter lines use less pressure and/or lighter tools. Line weight can be used to add some depth to an image.

title: Art Tutorials/General Concepts/Line


text:
Talk:Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning/Interaction

Untitled
If anyone wants to record their language exchanges and/or post the exchanges to a blog I'd check out Pamela. Bundles with skype, so you can just set it so that a box pops up asking if you want to record the session. Also automatically warns the other party through a text message that the session is being recorded. Let me know too if anyone else is skypecasting these exchanges. I'd be curious as to how other people are structuring the class etc.

Todd Bryant Dickinson College bryantt@dickinson.edu

Social Networking
Social Networking websites such as MySpace, Facebook, Xanga, Sconex, Bebo and Tagged (all mentioned in the U.S. News & World Report article on MySpace in the 18 September 2006 issue) appear to be an interesting venue for interacting in English, although I have little personal familiarithy with these sites.

Do similar sites exist in other languages? How do they work for someone who is a L2 speaker? Can we get lists of similar Social Networking sites in other languages? Do they all just use aynchronous text?

Gary Cziko 13:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Thinking/First- And Second-Level Thinking

Just what does the human mind do when it thinks? Here we must conjecture a little.

Thinking seems to occur on several levels. (The term “level” will be used to distinguish one kind of mental activity from another. These thinking activities overlap, and are not actually separate and distinct. They could be described as different "modes of thought,” but separating the process into three “levels” aids explanation.)

Before we begin, let us distinguish what happens autonomically—the brain’s control of body functions mentioned in section one. As has been stated, what the brain does reflexively is not really considered to be thinking. For example when confronting danger, the body prepares for flight or fight - the pulse races, the lungs ventilate, the digestion is suspended, the stomach and bowels may be emptied (hence such expressions as sick with worry and frightened shitless).

These emotional responses are fast and dirty survival mechanisms. Except insofar as they affect mood and thus rational thinking we will mostly ignore this kind of uncontrollable activity.

 * Return to Thinking, Introduction
 * ../First-Level Thinking—Awareness/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Thinking/First-Level Thinking—Awareness

In what will be called the “first level” of thinking, the brain simply absorbs information from its sensors (predominantly the eyes, and then the ears for humans). First-level thought amounts to little more than a general awareness of one’s surroundings. Cassirer writes about this mental activity as follows. “In the realm of mythic conception”. . . (which preceded the use of words and language). . . “thought does not confront its data in an attitude of free contemplation, seeking to understand their structure and their systematic connections, and analyzing them according to their parts and functions, but is simply captivated by a total impression. Such thinking does not develop the given content of experience; it does not reach backward or forward from that vantage point to find ‘causes’ and ‘effects,’ but rests content with taking in the sheer existent.”

Animals, certainly, have this ability. Most mammals mainly comprehend their environment visually, as we do, but many obtain the same kind of awareness predominantly through a different sense—that which has become their most highly developed one. Bats, we know, rely upon their ears, much more than their eyes, to build instantaneous mental pattern-pictures of their surroundings. Dogs are likely to develop odour maps of their territory.

First-level thinking is restricted to this kind of activity; the mental equivalent of simply displaying information within the brain. It exists only as temporary neural ion flows that form patterns, none of which become associated with previously stored patterns, for memories are not needed to generate this kind of awareness. These experiences never (unless linked to other memories during subsequent second-level thinking activities and recalled as an impression of some kind) form part of any permanent memory.

This is predominately located in a specific area of the brain, a sensory strip along the top center of your brain. Others forms of worldly awareness may exist however, much like earthworms response to light or even a venus-fly-trap's response to touching it's hairs, all transmitted chemically.

 * Return to Thinking, Introduction
 * ../Second-Level Thinking—Association/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Thinking/Second-Level Thinking—Association

Second-level thinking occurs in two forms, subconscious and conscious. It is defined to be occurring when the mind discovers meaningful associations between stored memories (i.e., earlier-formed, data-storing, neural networks) and incoming information, between two or more sets of incoming data, or between stored memories. Second-level thinking happens continuously at the subconscious level and intermittently at the conscious level. (This implies that subconscious thought precedes conscious thought, a phenomenon that brain-scanning has verified. We will refer to this again, in ../../Revelations And Conversions/.)

Scanning incoming data for relevancy and significance is second-level thinking’s most important function. A living entity’s most relevant and important concern is almost always survival (resulting in a constant search for active threats or potential danger, and for food and water). Its second most relevant and important concern is the possible opportunity to reproduce. The nature of this kind of thinking means that information is almost always stored in conjunction with emotional overtones.

Almost all subconscious second-level thinking is immediately discarded (as most habitat environments are benign and otherwise not of much significance). When meaningful relationships between incoming data and stored memories are found, they may trigger body reactions (such as danger-avoiding activity) and may break through from the subconscious into the conscious mind, where they are further considered.

Again, animals make these associations and comparisons (continually at the subconscious level, and periodically, with varying degrees of ability, at the conscious level). Animals generally ignore non-threatening events but react to potential danger situations, demonstrating that they know from past experience or instinct (remembering the gosling experiment) how to distinguish one from the other.

(Animals can do more than simply react to situations; they can plan ahead, using a knowledge of prevailing circumstances—social as well as situational. Dunbar [after describing how an old, ousted, male chimpanzee used rewards and punishments to manipulate an alliance with a weak young chimpanzee and so regain and retain control of a harem from its new, stronger leader] concluded that the behaviour of monkeys and apes showed that they can predict the outcome of their actions. )

Associating memories and/or stimuli in meaningful ways forms the basis of second-level thinking; language is certainly not needed to make such neural network linkages. Infants demonstrate that they can make associations and comparisons long before they can speak; for example, they react with surprise if some aspect of a frequently observed image has been changed.

The critical aspects that distinguish second-level thinking from first-level thinking are that, during second-level thinking, two or more sets of information are compared, differences are noted, and the relevance of any found variance is sought. The degree to which any detected difference is understood depends upon the sophistication of the animal—its evolutionary level, past experiences, education and intelligence. Simple animals may understand little about any discovered differences; humans may understand much.

The discovered relationship may, as previously noted, be immediately discounted and forgotten. However, those deemed to be significant may become stored as part of a new neural network if one or more links are forged between pre-existing patterns. The simple example that follows might clarify this important process.

Imagine that I want to drill a hole through a block of wood, and that I have the required drill but the drill bits are too short. What would I do? Well, I would look around to see what I had that might be long enough. When this first happened to me, it took a little while to think of cutting the head from a long nail then using the nail. However, the second time this occurred, I quickly remembered my previous solution.

The first situation above entailed second-level thought, the second occurrence did not. In the first situation, my mind had to mentally list the properties a useful bit must possess (strength, hardness, rigidity, length and so on) then cause me to seek something that possessed such properties. The two data sets (the neural network patterns that stored information about what was required, and the streams of data coming from my eyes as I looked over my workshop) were compared, and matches that denoted relevance to the problem induced temporary ion-flow loops between corresponding aspects. Once a solution was found, once I had spotted a nail and realized that it would serve my purpose, the temporary links that were significant were retained long enough to be made permanent through the growth of synaptic knobs, thus becoming available for future use as part of my neural network complex. Linking and learning turn out to be the same thing.

Simply remembering something done, heard, seen or read about is not second-level thinking, it is merely reactivating previously formed neural paths. No new links are made, and nothing new is learned during simple recall. In other words, recalling memories to mind is similar to looking at a picture or running a movie in one’s head, whereas second-level thinking is more akin to looking at two pictures or running two movies side-by-side, while constantly comparing and contrasting the two.

Infants, with brains containing well over 100 billion neurons, make neural links continuously as they attempt to join sensory stimuli with information that is stored in memory. Infants and young children learn quickly and easily, because stimuli are being stored and linked on a more-or-less “tabula rasa” (a term meaning “blank slate,” first used by John Locke in 1690 in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding to describe the mind of a newborn). That many of these associations will turn out to be incorrect and unusable is inconsequential; the links that matter are the ones that are subsequently reinforced through use. Billions of early made connections remain unused throughout all our lives, slowly atrophying. Christian de Duve pointed out that neurons initially make many loose connections; these are strengthened only if useful, and are discarded if not. The associations that are used, of course, are those connecting memories that, by being linked, provide useful understandings: the name of a toy, object or a sibling; the idea that certain results always follow certain activities (things fall to the ground when released, for instance); how to call for food, etc. Adults learn more slowly, because their minds first attempt to fit new stimuli into previously existing networks, and only when this can’t be done do they progress to looking for, then forming, completely new links. In other words, adults do not immediately think when reacting to a stimulus; they first search, very rapidly and almost entirely subconsciously, for past associations and use them, whenever the fit seems close enough.

Realizing that second-level thinking is little more than electrochemically comparing memories with incoming data (or comparing memories already in storage), recognizing relationships of significance between them, then making new neural links, tells us again that this kind of thinking cannot be unique to humankind. The brains of many animals do this. In fact, we should expect linkages to form between memories and incoming sensory stimulations in all animate entities, because sense receptor cells and neurons exist to provide information so that similarities and differences between incoming and stored memories can be detected. Animals and humans learn what these variations may imply and use this knowledge to survive and to mate. In short, humans are not the only life forms that think—animals do too.

However, thinking did not become what we generally understand it to be today until early humans discovered the use of words and languages. The next section shows how this ability led to a more comprehensive level of thought, one that we will be calling third-level thinking. Third-level thinking is, primarily, a human activity.

 * Return to Thinking, Introduction
 * ../Third-Level Thinking And Language/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Thinking/Third-Level Thinking And Language

The advances brought about by human thought have made modern life so different from the way it was just a few hundred years ago, that folks of those days might rightly have called us sorcerers or magicians, were we and a few of our many technologies to suddenly have appeared among them.

People of such times would have had the upmost difficulty to understand how we can talk to someone many kilometres away, can be heard or how their image can be projected upon a screen, nor how heavy machines can fly through the air, how joints and body organs can be replaced, or how pest- and disease-resistant plants can be developed. Today most of us take these developments for granted.

How has it been possible for humans to discover and accomplish so much in just a few thousand years? Only 5000 years have elapsed since the first major road some 2,857 km from the Persian Gulf to the Aegean Sea, was built, although humans seem to have emerged some 3 million years before that.

Many other species have existed for tens of millions of years; why have none ever attained anything even remotely approaching human achievements? Why did their cognitive ability not develop as it has for humans? The answer, we know, is twofold: We are a relatively puny species, and had to find ways to survive in competition with better adapted animals.

Fortunately the forest dwelling ancestors of humans developed opposable thumbs for locomotion in trees, and that grasping, manipulative capacity led to Homo Hablis. When the forest receded (or humans migrated to the savannah grasslands) standing on the back legs provided a wider field of view for avoiding predators and finding prey. Eventually perpetual bipedalism released the upper limbs from locomotion, allowing unrestricted hand usage and maximizing latent abilities to build and use tools. Learning how to make and use tools and weapons involves much more imagination than merely copying, and our ancestors therefore developed advanced, formal signalling which led to language.

Formal audible signalling is widely used to express emotions. Many animals and birds can be heard declaring their feelings when they grunt, cry, bark or sing to signal danger, mark territory or attract mates. Such sounds sum their current emotional state and declare it to the world, conveying meaning to other sentient species around them. Human mothers recognize infant cries and know 'instinctively' when their infants are hungry, uncomfortable, distressed or merely bored.

Intentional sounds such as an infant cry are not just involuntary reactions to a stimuli — are dramatically improve the probability of survival for the originator and its species.

There is an important difference between publicizing one emotion and vocalizing a series of them. A cry of pain can be an instinctive reaction, requiring no thinking ability—a behaviour discussed previously. A cry of pain followed by one of anger, then one of threat, may well be demonstrating the use of something like a language because the animal is attempting to make others understand and respond to its mental or emotional state.

The development of any language, like most evolutionary change, would doubtlessly have taken place sporadically, in dribbles and spurts. Significant advances were likely only made whenever a particular kind of vocalization could be repeatedly used to convey some special meaning to another, or when an exchange of sounds enabled an exchange of intentions, and such an interchange was reiterated with some consistency.

Animals can, and do, use advanced signalling systems with some proficiency. Gerbils have developed a fairly complex language to warn one another of the presence of predators. Dolphins, like whales, exchange complex information sonically; they can also recognize, and respond appropriately to, the meaning hidden within the grammatical structure of human hand signals. Chimpanzees use primitive language forms, and many have been trained to select symbols that convey their desires for food, drink, or toys. They are also able to express a whole range of other reactions in response to questioning. Several have been trained to use ASL signs, and one such chimp subsequently taught others some signs. The experiments are regarded widely as failures - the chimps did not learn language, they were simply able to mimic an extremely limited number of signs in more-or-less appropriate contexts.

Primitive language usage would have emerged a great many times as species developed, but it has never developed to any significant extent (as far as we know) in any species other than our own. Two evolutionary developments contributed to our ability: a deep-set larynx (which forms a large, resonating chamber, possibly helped into position as we began walking upright) and vocal chords (which can vibrate and are controllable). These features allow us to form and vocalize an almost unlimited number of distinctly different sounds.

Thinking by using word equivalents became possible as soon as words began to be used. A simple proto-language (employing nouns, verbs, subjects, objects, and simple sentence structures) would have begun to take shape from the outset.

Language use improved our species’ ability to recall memories (the first step in discovering links or relationships between them and incoming stimuli). Once relationships had been found and named, early humans would have used this knowledge within their clans to enhance their group’s survival. Third-level thinking and language development would now continue forever hand-in-hand, because an improvement in one concomitantly produces an improvement in the other.

Cassirer, discussing these early phases of language development, stated: “Before the intellectual work of conceiving and understanding of phenomena can set in, the work of naming must have preceded it, and have reached a certain point of elaboration. For it is this process which transforms the world of sense impression, which animals also possess, into a mental world, a world of ideas and meanings. All theoretical cognition takes its departure from a world already preformed by language.”

Word arrangements, syntax and sentence structures are essential components of all languages. Thus the ability to sequence thoughts must have developed before language could have evolved. Calvin suggests that this skill first arose as our ancestors learned how to throw rocks and sticks accurately, an ability which requires the careful sequencing of vision, arm, and finger movements to be successful. This is likely to have happened some two million years ago, when Homo erectus emerged from trees to live on the African plains, where surveillance and throwing from an upright posture became a common occurrence.

Sequencing (of data) is a necessary part of comparing memories and incoming stimuli; it simplifies the discovery of meaningful relationships between mental data, and, as earlier noted, relationship-discovering is the quintessential feature of second-level thinking.

Various kinds of evidence exist indicating early human life forms used sophisticated language. Rudgley, in The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age, refers to work done by Dietrich and Ursula Mania, on findings that date to between 350,000 and 300,000 years ago from the Bilzingsleben Lower Palaeolithic site near Halle in former East Germany. This site contains evidence of workshop areas, complete with anvil stones (where tools were made) and stone, wood and bone remnants (all showing tool markings). Four artifacts with a series of parallel-cut incisions were also found. It is thought that a clan of considerable dexterity lived and worked in this area, one which very likely used some rudimentary form of language, and that the parallel lines probably conveyed some specific meaning.

Rhulen, a linguist, investigated word origins, and has found evidence that supports the theory that all languages originate from one, proto-sapiens, language, which existed some 100,000 years ago. Nichols has examined syntax and other structural mechanisms used in languages, and dates their origins even further back, to at least 132,000 y.a.

Words and language are central to what we are calling third-level thinking. We may not always select and use actual words when thinking consciously, but a few moment’s reflection about how attention is being directed from one aspect to another within our mind when thinking consciously makes it apparent that we use sentence-structure equivalents. (Tattersall and Matternes go as far as to say that we could not even conceive the idea of thought if we did not use a language. )

Third-level thinking manifests itself as if we were talking to ourselves. For instance, when we are preparing to express a point of view we fabricate sentences, developing and rejecting trains of thought within our minds. We usually attempt to follow one main track when thinking, but our central theme is always surrounded by a plethora of other, loosely associated, thoughts and images, each offering more data for potential inclusion. Our thoughts wend their way among these submissions, and only finally crystallize when we mouth or write a statement, or act upon a thought. Cassirer again: “only symbolic expression can yield the possibility of prospect and retrospect, because it is only by symbols that distinctions are not merely made, but fixed in consciousness. What the mind has once created, what has been culled from the total sphere of consciousness, does not fade away again when the spoken word has set its seal upon it and given it definite form.”

Third-level thinking is slow compared to the speed of second-level thinking because word selection and arrangement takes time. Moreover, third-level thinking is always preceded by second-level thinking. Although we may feel that our conscious thoughts occur immediately, experiments (particularly those with people who have sustained brain damage ) show that unconscious emotional signals—a component of subconscious thinking, alluded to earlier—always precede conscious thinking, and certainly affect decision making.

The consequences of prior subconscious second-level thinking have been often noted by novelists. They, not infrequently, state that their characters “took over” and wrote the story. Actually, their subconscious second-level thinking would have continuously explored and developed associations between memories of characters, and the results of this activity would have been fed to their conscious second and third level of thinking, giving rise to the feeling that their characters were in control.

Language development facilitated huge improvements in Homo sapiens’ ability to problem solve, and this significantly increased their survival ability. Language use allowed early men and women to teach weapon construction, organize group hunting, deploy themselves to previously determined purposes, and so on, considerably enhancing their chances of obtaining food, killing animals or besting enemies. Greater skill and efficiency in these areas left more time for other activities—in animal and plant domestication, artistry and creativity, pottery and ornament production, culture and recreation, to provide just a few examples. Thinking, language use, problem solving, and the practical application of what has been learned form a spiral of constant and accelerating improvement that continues in humans today. (But only as long as the whole is reality-based: introducing fanciful assumptions about the nature of things warps and obstructs the whole process. More about this in later chapters.)

 * Return to Thinking, Introduction
 * ../Language And Uniqueness/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Thinking/Language And Uniqueness

This might be a good time to note that, although we use words as though they mean to others exactly what they mean to us, this is never the case. The precise meaning or nuance of every word differs from one person to another for several reasons.

Minor misunderstanding is vital to language development, for we learn a language by linking mental images of objects and events to words and phrases that we memorize. But the library of mental images we each must have before we can begin to learn a language is built from life experiences, and these are unique to each possessor. Every word a speaker or writer uses is defined for that person by the bank of memories carried within their mind.

Each person hearing or reading these words interprets their meaning using their own memory set. (A couple of crude examples: one person says “tree,” thinking of a small fir tree in a garden; the other person hears “tree,” and thinks of a large maple tree in a forest. Or, one person says “look at that motor,” admiring a vehicle's colour; the other says “yes,” seeing the same vehicle, but thinking of the engine that powers it.)

We can never convey precisely what we have in mind to another person, but as long as we are sane we can get close. Legally, a person whose internal mental model is not reliably realistic of the external real world is said to be insane. Furthermore, each of us defines what we consider to be true by referring to what we know about ourselves and our universe (i.e., by referring to the memories of reality that life has delivered to our minds since infancy) and this is constantly changing, as our knowledge about objects and events keeps changing. Thus, even our personal definition of the “truth” will change as we ourselves age and mature. The concept of “truth” is convoluted and personalized precisely because each of us uses our own experiences to interpret what different words mean. And as Ullian (W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian, The Web of Belief [Random House, 1970]) argued, everything we think we know about the universe is subject to revision. Mathematics comes closest to being the “truth” (as we shall see in Mathematical Problems), and religion frequently claims to be absolute, but both give way in light of new knowledge (mathematics more readily than religion). Try as we may, our mental deliberations and verbal expositions can never represent the whole, real, or perfect truth because we can never know it, and because we can never find words precise enough to think or express it. Furthermore, different people will always interpret their personal experiences of the same event in different ways. The “pure and simple truth” can never be expressed. Quine pointed out that no statement is necessarily true except those we ourselves decide to be true. In fact, extending the discussions presented in earlier sections of this chapter, since the words we use must necessarily be selected from our own mental dictionary of meanings, each one of us defines our own truth. This truth can never be conveyed to another. The best anyone else can do is to try to assimilate the general idea, then, using their own frame of reference, guess at what is meant.

It is interesting to note that a “Theory Of Everything” (see ../Gödel’s Theorem, General Systems Theory, and The Conservation Laws/), if ever formulated, is expected to be only expressible mathematically. It would be impossible to sufficiently define words to represent all that this theory would be capable of telling us. A Theory of Everything would devolve to other less-comprehensive theories (e.g., quantum mechanics or a theory of gravity), which could be more or less understood through defining words, but the Theory of Everything itself could not be linguistically defined.

The fact that word meanings change over time and become more precise as we understand more, can be readily illustrated by considering the word “atom.” Two thousand years ago there was debate about whether such a thing even existed.

Two hundred years ago a few believed that atoms existed, but no one knew anything about their structure. Twenty five years ago physicists wondered about the possibility of quarks existing within atoms; today we know that quark trios make up the protons and neutrons that are nuclear components of every atom, and that quarks are possibly composed of dimensionally bound energy fields.

Now, not everyone knows such details, but some do, and given enough study, most of us could learn more. So the images that the word “atom” conjures up in the minds rather depends on our level of understanding, and for those with more learning each word or expressed concept is clearly more meaningful, precise, potentially useful and valuable than the mind images of those who do not know very much about such things.

Remove language, and third-level thinking will disappear, mental consciousness will degenerate, and what we have been calling second-level thinking will be all that remains. Uninhibited feelings and emotions may then dominate behaviour as they once must have done in dinosaur days.

 * Return to Thinking, Introduction
 * ../Thinking And The Universe/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Thinking/Thinking And The Universe

Linking sensory data together, as second-level thinking does, can produce meaningful results precisely because everything in the universe is linked to every other thing through causality. Causality simply means that nothing in the universe happens without some preceding cause. This more-or-less obvious fact (known to René Descartes over three hundred years ago) actually reveals several other important details about the universe.

Causality states that everything that happens has been caused by some previous event or events, and it means that everything that exists today was created from some thing or things that existed in another form at an earlier time. In other words, events and things don’t just appear out of thin air, something causes them to appear.

It is easy to understand that everything is made from smaller pieces, and that these are, in turn, made from even smaller fragments. Also we can readily understand that the properties of any structure depends upon the properties of its components. For example, we don’t build railway bridges out of wood these days; it’s not strong enough. We use steel made mostly from iron, because iron atoms are tightly bound together by an electromagnetic force. (Wood is made from larger, widely spaced, carbon-based molecules that are only weakly held together.) The properties and behaviour of everything can be similarly explained in terms of more fundamental properties, once we know enough. The point is, we wouldn’t discover any such relationship through second-level thinking, nor develop any such explanation with all its useful predictions, if the universe was not causal.

Causality affects everything about us; it allows us to learn and it allows us to make things that work. Consequently (although not consciously) we have built this concept deep into the roots of the languages we use and the thinking we do. However, we don’t usually go around saying that the universe is causal; we just expect it to behave rationally or logically. Rational behaviour has been defined as behaviour that is consistent with, or based upon, reason or logic, and neither is possible without the existence of limitless causal relationships. One single break in this chain of causality would negate every one of the explanations and predictions we so much rely upon in all aspects of life.

The fact that the universe is causal has a number of very interesting linguistic consequences. One is that the very words and languages we use must grow out of, and conform to, the reality that surrounds us. This cannot be otherwise. We might try to invent a language not limited by the nature of the universe, but what could it possibly be? Existing words could not be used, for each one carries some of our understanding about the nature of things. Words would have to be invented, but none of these could refer to anything within the universe, by definition of what we are trying to do. We would end up with gibberish, not a language. It would convey no meaning and bring about no understanding. In fact we could not even invent such a language, because we are unable to think without being affected and constrained by the logic and rationality of the knowledge about the universe that we carry within our brains.

Steven Pinker argues in support of Chomsky's theory that a “Universal Grammar” underlies and constrains all languages. He further claims that the existence of a Universal Grammar is evidence that culture is not just a matter of nature and nurture, as the standard social science model would have us believe. This, he suggests, means that morality cannot be relative to time or situation, but must be universal and becomes built into our minds by our use of a language.

As for morality; we devise our moral statements using words whose definitions vary from one language to another, and that change from time to time and from person to person, as previously noted. Some might conclude from this that no humanly stated moral law or ethical principle can be universal or permanent. By the same token, it has been known since Herodotus (to name just one historical writer) that varied opinions as to right and wrong have existed simultaneously as far back as can be traced. It is difficult to conclude from mere variety of expression that there is no underlying human basis nor that such a basis is impossible.

 * Return to Thinking, Introduction
 * ../Thinking And Intelligence/


text:
User:Blainegarrett

Hi, my name is Blaine Garrett (clever usename huh?)

I am working on the Art Tutorials wikibook. I started getting active contributing to wikipedia last November, but started to get lax. I hope to keep a steady pace here.

I'll write more information later. In the mean time check out some of these links...

links

 * 1) blainegarrett dot com My homepage
 * 2) JR Computer Associates The Web Development company I co-founded
 * 3) The Art Attack The Art Community I co-founded
 * 4) My gallery

Contact

 * 1) Email : [mailto:blaine@blainegarrett.com]
 * 2) Instant Messenger
 * 3) AIM : zombiediv
 * 4) Yahoo : zombiediv
 * 5) MSN : garmark3@hotmail.com
 * 6) ICQ : 2976110

title: User:Blainegarrett


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Thinking/Thinking And Intelligence

Webster defines intelligence as follows.

The power or act of understanding; mental acuteness or sagacity; the power of meeting any situation, esp. a novel situation, successfully by proper behavior adjustments; the ability to apprehend the interrelationships of presented facts in such a way as to guide action towards a desired goal.

Any of these definitions may be applied to second-level thinking. Third-level thinking enhances and continues this process; it amplifies “mental acuteness or sagacity.” Thus, thinking and intelligence amount to much the same thing. Chapter Two investigates this connection a little more fully by discussing the mental gymnastics of problem solving.

 * Return to Thinking, Introduction
 * ../Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Thinking/Summary

The following points are important to this discussion.

 * The brain receives, stores (in temporary as well as permanent locations), and uses information to direct activities that support the body's welfare. These responses are mostly “hardwired,” the result of millions of years of evolution, and do not involve what we call “thinking.”
 * The mind develops as meaningful relationships between stored information (memories) and incoming sensory perceptions are discovered. Mental activities include becoming aware (first-level thinking), noting relationships (second-level thinking), and consciously manipulating information using words and a language.
 * Sentient species think (to the extent that this is possible for their species) and act rationally most of the time. To do otherwise reduces the species’ chances of survival because their home (the universe) is rationally (i.e., causally) constructed.

A dropped larynx, vocal chords, time, imagination, and much practice, have changed grunts into sonnets, and caves into space stations. Languages have allowed us to name, record and even tell friends on the other side of the world about the neural-link-forming relationships we discover everywhere we bother to look.

The universe's causality binds thinking, language and intelligence together. Applying what we have discovered through investigating causality's consequences enables us to solve problems and make decisions proficiently. Rational thought helps us to survive; it gifts us with understanding and confers a degree of control over objects and events.

Additional layers of mental ability will doubtless accrue as life continues to evolve: heightened empathy, intuitive-like jumps in comprehension, telepathy perhaps; capabilities unimaginable today, as some of our current capabilities would have been unimaginable a few thousand years ago. Life's rise from bacteria to cephalopod to humankind—as we can trace on this planet alone—provides reason enough to expect more intellectual aptitude to come in the future.

The future of humans as a species is much less predictable. It depends so much on our willingness to think and act rationally. Solving problems and making decisions, both practical and moral, in a manner that respects the universe's causality, are the activities that will determine humanity's future.

It is time to examine how we actually perform these tasks.

 * Return to Thinking, Introduction
 * Solving Problems, Introduction

(A postscript to this chapter, ../../Consciousness And Conscience/, is to be found at the end of this part.)


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Solving Problems

Humans excel at solving problems. (Pinker actually states that the mind has evolved simply to outsmart the competition by being able to solve problems. Humans living and working in space is possibly one of the best examples of how successful we have become in problem solving, but examples can be found in all fields of endeavour, from discovering how genes work, to creating an emotional demand for a new product.

Problems come in two flavours, tangible and abstract. Or, if you like, practical and metaphysical. The difference between these two types can be illustrated by discussing the kinds of problems that interest mathematicians and scientists. Chapter Two provides some examples, then explores how we all typically go about solving everyday problems. This approach will show why moral problems are often difficult to solve, what humans have done to reduce this difficulty, and prepares the way for later suggesting what might be done to facilitate moral problem solving in the future.

 * 1) /Mathematical Problems/
 * 2) /Scientific Problems/
 * 3) /Problem Environments/
 * 4) /Moral Problems/
 * /Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Solving Problems/Mathematical Problems

Mathematics is a set of precise languages comprising such topics as arithmetic (numbers) geometry (shapes) Algebra (symbols) and calculus (concepts).

Mathematics is an edifice, built from the ground up, assembled, definition by definition, from scratch. Those of you who studied geometry in school will remember its never-ending series of theorem proofs. Geometry, we were told, is one of the oldest branches of mathematics, taught by Pythagoras in the sixth century BCE, and used by the Pharaohs’ surveyors to restore field boundaries each time the Nile flooded. Geometry starts with the very simplest statement, a definition of a point, a line or a circle, then looks for the extensions and connections that are logically implicit within these definitions. The whole process is repeated each time a new definition (that of a parallelogram, for instance) is introduced.

Mathematicians have been adding new definitions to geometry for centuries. At the same time, they have been busy constructing other branches of mathematics: algebra, calculus, trigonometry, topology, set theory, and so on. Each function, each definition, and each statement in every branch has to be very carefully assessed for logical consistency when introduced, then again every time it is used to link to something newly added, and once more whenever it is put to theoretical or practical use. This is done, because each newly added feature introduces more relationships, and it is these relationships that determine if the whole assembly makes sense. Mathematics, then, is held together just as precisely as the universe itself seems to be held together.

Through these means, mathematics is created to be internally sound and rational, self sufficient to the extent of possessing its own reality, dependent upon the real world only in as much as it is built from a language defined in the real world, and connected to the real world in meaning only if we choose to make such a connection. By itself, mathematics is abstract, pure and complete; it does not need to be given any link to the universe (other than that necessarily implicit in its nomenclature). In fact, it is not uncommon for mathematicians to explore the properties of creations such as multidimensional space or imaginary numbers—fancies which no one has experienced first hand.

However, we can, and very often do, link our mathematical understandings to the real world. We do this, for instance, when demonstrating to children that three fingers plus two fingers equals five fingers. Remarkably, it is becoming more and more certain that the mentally constructed world of abstract mathematics contains the ability to describe, explain and predict the very concrete behaviour of the real universe we inhabit.

Pythagoras showed this over two and a half thousand years ago, when he described mathematically a property of two dimensional space (the relationship between squares formed on the sides of a right-angled triangle). Newton demonstrated the same connection between mathematics and reality over four hundred years ago, when he showed mathematically that the force holding planets in orbit is related to the involved masses and distances between them.

Einstein confirmed this connection when he discovered and proved, again mathematically, that the properties of the four (space-plus-time) dimensions prohibit matter from moving faster than the speed of light. Mathematicians continually push the boundaries and today routinely use complex number theories to define the properties of multidimensional space, a reality which some think may actually exist (perhaps within black holes, or defining fundamental "superstring" properties, or building a universe external to our own).

Because mathematics has been rigorously and logically constructed to be an abstract entity, mathematicians think that its various domains will be considered to be as true in a million years time as they would have been a million years ago, long before they could have been understood by any sentient being living upon this planet. (Moreover, because scientists can use mathematics to predict and explain events occurring billions of light-years distant.

Mathematicians also consider that these mathematical statements hold true in other galaxies, and are therefore discoverable by life forms living upon planets in those regions.) To pure mathematicians, it is often a subsequent (and, possibly, less important) finding that the mathematical properties they uncover have meaning in the real world. They prefer to solve problems within the bounded beauty of a fully discoverable, self-consistent, abstract world. Be this as it may, the many connections between abstract mathematics and the practical realities of the real world have allowed us to solve countless complex problems, and have led to a multitude of discoveries in arenas as diverse as economics, sociology, epidemiology, space flight, nuclear physics, genetics, cosmology and medicine, to name just a few.

That logically generated mathematics describes and defines the universe so accurately reinforces a fact that has already been stated: the universe must be causal and rational, for, if it were not, the intrinsic fit between mathematics and the universe’s functioning would not exist.

 * Return to Solving Problems, Introduction
 * ../Scientific Problems/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Solving Problems/Scientific Problems

Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of observed phenomena that can be tested and challenged by others.

Scientists are a similar breed of specialists to mathematicians. They also deduce relationships, but their work typically starts from, and is grounded in, the concrete world (for example, in the field or in the laboratory), rather than the abstract world. Scientists aim to uncover the causal and connective relationships that exist between “real” events and “real” things. They strive to explain and understand reality.

We might say that science began when humans started to wonder about the nature of their surroundings in some kind of organized manner; when individuals first asked what might be causing the sun and stars to appear to move, or thunder to deafen, or animals to be so similar inside yet so outwardly different.

Middleton, in his 1963 discourse on the scientific revolution, realized that this occurred many centuries ago. He noted that Thales of Miletus (who lived from 640-546 BC) wanted to explain the universe. In other words, Thales understood that there is a causal reason for each tiny piece of the universe to be the way it is. This, stated Middleton, marked the birth of science.

Slowly, by careful observation, control of variables, measurement, accurate records, repetition and a great deal of thought, scientists began to understand why nature behaves as it does. Understanding grew in leaps and bounds once scientists learned to extend their senses’ abilities by building instruments: first measuring sticks, balances and graduated containers, then micrometers, microscopes and telescopes.

People eventually discovered (only about two centuries ago) that precision and knowledge go hand-in-hand with the ability to challenge accepted wisdom. Accurate measurements allowed Copernicus and Galileo to place the sun, rather than the Earth, at the centre of our collection of planets. Newton carefully observed moving objects (some say a falling apple), then wrote the gravitational formula that explains how the universe is held together. Wallace and Darwin recorded fine details of life’s species, then deduced the mechanism of evolution. Einstein employed acutely crafted thought-experiments about relativity, then extended the significance and value of Newton’s work.

Scientists and mathematicians follow similar methodologies; they seek and uncover facts, then try to discover any relationships that may exist between these facts, or between these and other known facts or theories. Both professions are delving deeper and deeper into the nature of the universe, and the two, seemingly distinct, knowledge domains are converging. Scientists routinely use mathematics to obtain precision and to extend their discipline’s utility. Mathematicians use their skills to describe what is happening in the centre of stars, and to reconstruct what must have happened moments after the universe began. The abstract explains the concrete; the concrete adds flesh to the abstract.

 * Return to Solving Problems, Introduction
 * ../Problem Environments/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Solving Problems/Problem Environments

Of course we all, scientists, mathematicians, or laypersons, solve many problems every day. While most of these are addressed and resolved routinely and efficiently, the speed and accuracy of our problem solving depends almost entirely upon one factor—how well we understand the background situation, i.e., the “environment” (examples discussed below will shortly clarify and extend this term) that contains and presents the problem we are trying to solve. Everyday problems are solved very quickly, often without realizing a problem is being addressed, because we generally know a lot about the various environments we inhabit. On the other hand, scientific and mathematical problems not infrequently take a long time to solve; this is usually because those working on the problem do not yet have sufficient information about their problem’s environment.

To correctly solve any problem then, we must correctly understand its “environment.” This is because a problem is only properly solved when its solution can be used within (or is accepted by) the relevant environment, without causing additional problems. Luckily, each problem’s environment also invariably contains the criteria which the problem’s solution must satisfy.

It is important to understand the meaning of the term “environment” when used in the current context. The word is used here to identify the physical, social, occupational, political, economic, religious, cultural, or other context (or an often complex combination of several such contexts) that contain the problem that confronts us. Recognizing that problems exist within one or more environments is key to understanding how problems (particularly moral ones) are solved.

Thinking about a few everyday situations may help to clarify this discussion. Consider dressing, cutting the lawn, and cooking a meal. The choices to be made in each case can be thought of as being minor problems to be solved, and we’ll review each in turn.

When we select something to wear from a choice of clothes, we refer to the occasion or situation for which we are dressing in order to decide what to wear. This is so whether we are dressing for work, to go on a trip, climb a mountain, or just lounge in the house. We choose clothes by considering what’s available (e.g., clean, comfortable, appropriate, etc.) and the circumstances pertaining when wearing the clothes (e.g., temperature, weather, others present, etc.), although for routine occasions this may happen so quickly that we don’t notice that we are solving little problems. The criteria or standards that determine the success of the eventual choice made is clearly located in the environment that presents the problem—in some of the situations just mentioned, the work, social, local, or home environments. (Furthermore, note that the environment also determines what kind of goal can be achieved successfully; for instance, it is not possible to receive praise for being fashionably dressed if no one else will be present when lounging in the house. More about this in Practical Decisions.)

Consider the second example. I look out of the window and notice that the grass needs cutting, perhaps just a small problem now but one that will grow if neglected. So I make the decision to mow the grass later in the afternoon. In this case, note that I appear to be driven to meet some standard of lawn appearance, and that this standard has been set by my external environment—the society and culture in which I live. If I had earlier decided to ignore society’s conventions, or if I lived in a place where people did not bother about such matters, then long grass would not be seen as a problem, and I may not even notice how tall the grass had become. Note, again, that when there is a problem, it is an external environment that both thrusts the problem upon me, and that holds the standards or criteria to be met when correcting the problem. Living in town, I would probably have to mow the grass weekly; living in the country, once or twice a month might suffice.

Now the third example: imagine preparing a meal. When I am in this situation I find that before I can choose a menu or select a method of cooking I must first think about who will be eating the meal, what food is available, where I might have to go to buy missing ingredients, what might be nice to eat today, what has been recently eaten by those attending, other goals I might want to achieve with these particular guests, and so on. All of these thoughts relate to my environment (the physical, social, nutritional and emotional elements mostly, in this case) and this environment limits what I can do if I want to cook and serve a successful meal.

Note that, besides referring to external environments we also refer to what’s inside our minds, our “internal environment,” because a great deal of relevant information has been stored there and some of it is used in making any decision. For example, our mind tells us what cooking skills we have, whether or not the lawn mower is in working condition, when a particular suit was last worn, etc. But, in all cases, our mind is only providing previously acquired information relevant to the situation we are in, and this information always comes from some knowledge of external environments of one kind or another.

Sometimes, our own bodies may present a problem to the mind (a craving for salty food, for instance), in which case it is our body’s feelings or standards of well-being that have to be included in the problem-solving process. This is still an example of a problem stemming from an environment external to the mind (the organs or systems that are calling for salt are external to the mind. Problems that arise solely within the mind are special situations, and will be discussed in section four.)

We should mention here that dressing or cooking to suit nothing other than our own current feelings is also, like the salt-craving example, an attempt to satisfy a mood biochemically caused by some agent (dopamine or serotonin, perhaps) within our body or brain, i.e., it emanates from a source that is again external to our mind. We choose the solution that best satisfies our desires. In cases like these, we might say we “go with the flow.” (A few of us may try to do this much of the time—living in the “here and now” was popular a few decades ago and is still a desired behaviour for some.) However, simply responding to biochemical desires is an emotional, not reasoned, response to a situation, and not of much pertinence to the current discussion.

To recapitulate and summarize this section: problems can never be solved without reference to the particular environment that presents them. This will always be true, for several reasons. First, we have to know, understand and explore the properties of a problem’s environment to determine what is causing a problem. Second, each environment contains the criteria that must be met if a problem is to be solved without causing additional problems. And, third, we must know what the environment will permit us to achieve before we can select an achievement to strive for. Only once we understand what is causing the problem, what can or can’t be done about it, what end-results are achievable (and desirable to us—more about this in Practical Decisions), can we then solve the problem. In short; to succeed, we must know what we want and can do.

Well, that is probably enough about how we solve practical problems; now we are ready to investigate what we do to solve moral problems.

 * Return to Solving Problems, Introduction
 * ../Moral Problems/


text:
Ordinary Differential Equations/Homogenous 4

1)

$$3y''+18y'-81y=0$$

Step 1: Get the equation in the form $$C_1y^{(n)}+C_2y^{(n-1)}+...+C_{n+1}y=0$$

$$y''+6y'-27y=0$$

Step 2: Find the roots of the equation $$C_1r^n+C_2r^{n-1}+...+C_{n+1}$$

$$r^2+6r-27=0$$

$$r=-9,3$$

Step 3: Your result is $$y=c_1e^{r_1x}+c_2e^{r_2x}+...+c_ne^{r_nx}$$

$$y=c_1e^{-9x}+c_2e^{3x}$$

2)

$$y''+6y'+13y=0$$

Step 1: Get the equation in the form $$C_1y^{(n)}+C_2y^{(n-1)}+...+C_{n+1}y=0$$

$$y''+6y'+13y=0$$

Step 2: Find the roots of the equation $$C_1r^n+C_2r^{n-1}+...+C_{n+1}$$

$$r^2+6r+13=0$$

$$r=-3 \pm 2i$$

Step 3: Your result is $$y=c_1e^{r_1x}+c_2e^{r_2x}+...+c_ne^{r_nx}$$

$$y=e^{-3x}(c_1cos(2x)+c_2sin(2x))$$

3)$$y''+10y'+25y=0$$

Step 1: Get the equation in the form $$C_1y^{(n)}+C_2y^{(n-1)}+...+C_{n+1}y=0$$

$$y''+10y'+25y=0$$

Step 2: Find the roots of the equation $$C_1r^n+C_2r^{n-1}+...+C_{n+1}$$

$$r^2+10r+25=0$$

$$r=-5,-5$$

Step 3: Your result is $$y=c_1e^{r_1x}+c_2e^{r_2x}+...+c_ne^{r_nx}$$

$$y=c_1e^{-5x}+c_2xe^{-5x}$$

4)

$$y'+24y+218y''+838y'+1369y=0$$

Step 1: Get the equation in the form $$C_1y^{(n)}+C_2y^{(n-1)}+...+C_{n+1}y=0$$

$$y'+24y+218y''+838y'+1369y=0$$

Step 2: Find the roots of the equation $$C_1r^n+C_2r^{n-1}+...+C_{n+1}$$

$$r^4+24r^3+218r^2+838r+1369=0$$

$$r=-6-i,-6+i,-6-i,-6+i$$

Step 3: Your result is $$y=c_1e^{r_1x}+c_2e^{r_2x}+...+c_ne^{r_nx}$$

$$y=e^{-6x}(c_1cos(x)+c_2sin(x)+c_3xcos(x)+c_4xsin(x))$$

5)

$$y'-2y-15y'+36y=0$$

Step 1: Get the equation in the form $$C_1y^{(n)}+C_2y^{(n-1)}+...+C_{n+1}y=0$$

$$y'-2y-15y'+36y=0$$

Step 2: Find the roots of the equation $$C_1r^n+C_2r^{n-1}+...+C_{n+1}$$

$$r^3-2r^2-15r+36=0$$

$$r=-4,3,3$$

Step 3: Your result is $$y=c_1e^{r_1x}+c_2e^{r_2x}+...+c_ne^{r_nx}$$

$$y=c_1e^{-4x}+c_2e^{3x}+c_3xe^{3x}$$

6)

$$y'+5y-4y'-20y=0$$

Step 1: Get the equation in the form $$C_1y^{(n)}+C_2y^{(n-1)}+...+C_{n+1}y=0$$

$$y'+5y-4y'-20y=0$$

Step 2: Find the roots of the equation $$C_1r^n+C_2r^{n-1}+...+C_{n+1}$$

$$r^3+5r^2-4r-20=0$$

$$r=2,-2,-5$$

Step 3: Your result is $$y=c_1e^{r_1x}+c_2e^{r_2x}+...+c_ne^{r_nx}$$

$$y=c_1e^{2x}+c_2e^{-2x}+c_3e^{-5x}$$

7)

$$y'+4y+y'-26y=0$$

Step 1: Get the equation in the form $$C_1y^{(n)}+C_2y^{(n-1)}+...+C_{n+1}y=0$$

$$y'+4y+y'-26y=0$$

Step 2: Find the roots of the equation $$C_1r^n+C_2r^{n-1}+...+C_{n+1}$$

$$r^3+4r^2+r-26=0$$

$$r=-3+2i, -3-2i,2$$

Step 3: Your result is $$y=c_1e^{r_1x}+c_2e^{r_2x}+...+c_ne^{r_nx}$$

$$y=c_1e^{2x}+e^{-3x}(c_2cos(2x)+c_3sin(2x))$$


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Solving Problems/Moral Problems

Morality means thinking and acting in accord with standards of right or good conduct according to the system of ideas of right and wrong held by society. Religious morality emerged as a survival strategy, so in most religions it is generally forbidden to kill other people, but there are occasions when killing is permitted. Most formal religious organizations resist the abolition of the death penalty (capital punishment) for criminals, and support just wars, yet many ordinary people interpret religious scripts against killing more literally, as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its little sister, the European Convention.

Much less difficult moral problems can emerge from any environment—home, family, business, social, medical, and so on, and many may look just like any other kind of problem. None come with a flag that states, “Beware—Moral Problem!” So, the mind cranks up the same problem-solving routine it has been using since second-level thinking began. It gathers details about the situation that presents the problem and quickly formulates several solutions. It then has to decide which solution is the most appropriate. And this is where difficulties may arise, as a simple example might illustrate.

Imagine that someone in a store takes an item to the checkout counter and the clerk rings up the wrong price. If the checkout price is higher than it should be, most people would question it and ask for a correction. But, if it were lower, some might speak up while others might say nothing. This kind of situation, most would say, is a moral one, and the action taken would be the result of making a moral decision. The problem of which choice to make (speak up and pay more, or say nothing and save) can be simple for some. Many might invariably be “honest” and speak up; others might always choose to maximize their personal gain and would say nothing. People in either of these categories might not even notice that there is a choice; for them there is no problem to be solved, their mind-set automatically provides just one solution and they act upon the decision their mind presents without questioning it.

However, some would see that they are being asked to make a moral decision, and this is where difficulties can arise. To understand why, we have to discuss what’s happening in a little more detail.

Moral problems are actually very similar to mathematical problems. Like math problems (which have their origins in the abstract mathematical environment that defines them), moral problems arise from their own abstract moral environment. And we must understand the true nature of this environment in order to find satisfactory solutions. Moreover, the more difficult the problem is, the more we have to understand about its environment.

Moral problems ask the mind to decide which solutions are “right” rather than “wrong,” and which behaviours might be deemed to be “good” rather than “bad.” Now, as we have seen, the criteria needed to select the right answers for practical problems are found by examining the environment that presents the problem. But what environment actually presents moral problems? From where do they stem? This would be the rightful place to find the criteria sought, but this presents a dilemma: the universe contains no practical, concrete, “real” or verifiable moral environment waiting to be found and consulted.

Moral problems arise solely within the mind, and it is therefore the mind itself that both defines the moral environment and contains the criteria that solutions must meet to be deemed satisfactory. Everything that makes some particular concern a “moral problem” to a person is contained wholly within that person’s mind. Thus, it is the mind-set of the customer at the checkout counter that determines if being undercharged presents a moral problem, and it is this mind-set that provides the frame of reference that is drawn upon when the decision to speak up or remain silent is made.

We should stop here to consider what this means, and what we typically do about it. If a person is a practicing member of a religion, then they almost certainly possess an appropriate mental environment which they can consult when contemplating moral issues, and usually nothing stops the problem-solving process for them at this point. The most important function of any religion is to build such a mental environment, to teach followers what to believe and how to behave (that is, to provide solutions that resolve various kinds of moral problems). The “religious environment,” the neural networks constituting memories that those following a religion have spent time building within their minds, is available for exactly these occasions. It is rare (although perhaps now becoming more common) to encounter a moral problem that has not been already solved by others within the doctrine, but, if ever this does occur, then the adherent is expected to think about what has been written in religious texts, taught by their religious teachers, or said by a religious leader. The devout likely solve most of the moral problems they encounter by referring to one or more of these sources. More complicated issues might involve talking to a theologian or other respected authority. But there exists, for people following a religion, a relevant environment to consult, in which can be found the criteria to judge which solutions are acceptable, as well as the valued purpose that provides reasons for making the “correct” choice.

However, it may be that many moral problems are not actually solved this way today, even by the devout. Perhaps some, or even most, everyday “moral” problems are in fact solved by recourse to the individual’s social or cultural environment. In other words, perhaps when a person wants to know the “right thing to do,” they [possibly quite subconsciously] might think along these lines; “now, what does society sanction?” Or, “what would my group expect of me?” They might even think, “what can I get away with?” Or, “how far can I go without being caught?” The last two examples might be a little extreme, but they serve to make a point: that in many situations today we may actually be obtaining our values, our standards, the criteria we use to judge which solutions are morally acceptable, from the social sub-set we inhabit, not from our religion. I suspect that, to the extent that this may be true, it is mostly so because our religions are failing to keep up with the changing times.

So be it for those who have a religion to follow, or those who can be satisfied by adopting their society’s criteria of what a “good person” should do. People with these ideologies can make decisions (and feel or be certain that they have behaved morally) by consulting their knowledge of these constructed environments. But, what about those who have no mental religious environment to guide their decisions and disdain the vagaries of social standards? How can these people solve moral problems? Admittedly, there may be relatively few such people today, but there must have been many pondering such dilemmas before religions became common features of social life. Since we will shortly be investigating the emergence of religions, it is particularly important to explore what such people might do.

Presumably, some who have thought about such issues will have worked out their own value system, perhaps one based upon standards drawn piecemeal from one or more existing religions or societies they know about, but personalized in some manner. Others might just “play things by ear,” letting their emotions and feelings tell them how to behave as each situation unfolds. But a few, surely, would not be satisfied by such methods, and would want to work out solutions in a careful and rational manner. Where are these individuals to obtain the criteria they need to make moral choices? The physical environment holds none. The social environment has been ruled insignificant. Every religious source has been deemed artificial or irrelevant. And, they lack an appropriate internal, or mental, environment. How can such individuals solve moral issues rationally, and make decisions they can live with?

We are not quite ready to answer such questions yet but will do so in Chapter Three, where we explore how decisions are made. Before then, there are a couple of other issues that should be addressed. The first has to do with what people consider to be moral problems; the second asks why such problems arise.

It is difficult to provide examples of moral problems because what may be a concern for some, may not be so for others. But I will propose a few that may illustrate the point to be noted.

Consider a woman who has learned that the fetus she is carrying has a life-threatening defect. Some may see this situation as a moral issue, others may see it as a practical one. However, the point is, for this discussion, a religious person might have fewer options regarding the fetus than others; for example, abortion may be out of the question for those of certain faiths, and the woman may have no choice at all regarding her situation. Those without such a religion may have a greater number of options, but may lack guidelines of any kind; they would likely find it very difficult to make a decision about the fetus.

Another example: consider someone whose spouse is terminally ill, in considerable pain, and who expresses a wish to die. May the healthy spouse act to fulfil such a desire? How does a non-religious person make this kind of decision, if they see it as a moral issue? How do they justify the choice they make? (And, is this justification likely to be acceptable in law, or to society?)

An example that shows the global nature of moral dilemmas today: what criteria should nations use to determine if intervening in another country’s affairs is justified? Is committing genocide a moral problem? By what criteria is this decided? What “environment” defines the situation as a moral, rather than a practical, one? What “greater purpose” is there to be achieved that permits overriding the tradition of respecting another nation’s autonomy?

One final example: many see acts of terrorism, when innocent bystanders, children and adults, are maimed or killed, as morally reprehensible. But an unknown number of others see such acts as a short-cut to paradise. One act—two diametrically opposite views, with seemingly no middle ground to enable reconciliation.

Clearly, by providing the otherwise non-existent but needed mental environment, religions fulfil a necessary role. Just as clearly, current religions are unable to provide a singular environment that could apply to and be adopted by all nations of the world. Consequently, humanity has no common moral authority to cite, and no collective conscience. The sudden collapse of energy giant Enron Corporation illustrates what can happen to organizations that lack moral environments. We might ask ourselves if such things as terrorism or the wealth disparity between nations (which affects maybe a billion or more people) illustrate that civilization lacks the same thing and if global collapse is a possible consequence.

The second question we should touch upon before moving on is: what prompts the appearance of “moral” problems? If individuals possess no inherent mental “religious” environment and have to be taught in order to construct one, then why would any “moral” problem have arisen in the first place? What would have prompted its appearance?

This question is easy to answer. Moral problems arise simply because the mind has the words and language that makes posing such problems possible. It is our mind’s ability to manipulate words that causes it to ask, “is it right to do this?” Humans are so used to mentally seeking the best course of action to take when practical alternatives arise that it is done automatically whenever more than one choice is offered. To put it crudely, we simply daydream moralistic alternatives, and then become stuck when trying to decide, “what is the right thing to do now?”

Without the mental ability to pose and answer questions (i.e., to note and solve problems) we could not ask ourselves if anything were right or wrong. In short, we don’t agonize over moral problems because we must, we do so simply because our mental ability with languages makes it possible, as the “moral” problems presented earlier in this section demonstrate. Our daily requirement to decide how to behave (together with the fact that religions have made the words “moral” and “ethical” part of most people’s vocabulary) is all that is needed to prompt such inquiries.

We are now well equipped to investigate the nature of decision making. Doing so will provide answers to the questions asked earlier: how can individuals solve moral issues rationally, and make decisions they can live with, if they lack a relevant (possibly religious) mental environment?

 * Return to Solving Problems, Introduction
 * ../Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Solving Problems/Summary

The mind uses words, phrases and thinking patterns that have developed as a result of dealing with real world situations. Questions such as, “should I take this path?” are perfectly answerable when walking along wooded trails, for example, because we may have a map that describes the territory, and because, presumably, we know where we want to go or what we want to achieve. The very same words seem to be meaningful when asked metaphysically, but often they are not—the question can arrive without a map or a goal of any kind in mind.

Mathematicians and theoretical scientists, it must be emphasized, do have a map and a purpose in mind when they begin their explorations. They, therefore, can pose abstract questions, and are able to find meaningful answers. Every iota of their maps is connected, each to another, joined by the glue of rationality, and logical exploration of the territories they describe is practical and possible.

Theologians also have maps, but the glue holding the pieces of their maps together is faith, which, unfortunately, may bear no relationship to logic or fact. This may not have mattered in days of yore, when logical consistency was of little importance, but every aspect of modern society is driven by technology and its computers, and humans living in modern environments are beginning to demand that their religions become as rational as they themselves are being forced to become. A modern age is calling for a modern religion, a call that might be very dangerous to ignore.

 * Return to Solving Problems, Introduction
 * Making Decisions, Introduction


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Making Decisions

The previous chapter observed that we solve problems by consulting their relevant environments, and that this is both to understand the problem and to find the criteria that an acceptable solution must satisfy. We glossed over the fact that there are frequently several solutions to each problem that will satisfy these criteria. This chapter discusses how the mind decides which solution to adopt. The answer in brief is: we make decisions in order to achieve a valued purpose.

 * 1) /Practical Decisions/
 * 2) /Moral Decisions/
 * /Summary/


text:
User talk:209.92.89.26

For primary research, try here. - Aya T E C 18:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:209.92.89.26


text:
Category:Asparagus recipes

Recipes involving asparagus.

title: Category:Asparagus recipes


text:
Talk:Chess/Variants/Random Opening Chess

Removal of RFD Status
I'm removing the RFD Status for this Wikibook, and I'm also changing the name and placing it as a sub-page to the more general Chess Wikibook under Variants. A more standardized format for discussing chess variants could be developed, but at least this gives this module some more life than simply getting deleted. See the VfD discussion for more details, and this shouldn't be renominiated except to kill the whole Chess Wikibook (very unlikely at all). --Rob Horning 00:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

name
Why is this called "Random Opening" Chess? The starting position (which I assume is what "opening" refers to here) is not random in any way. It's chosen by the players, and they get to think and use strategy while they choose it. It's in no way "random".

Fischer Random Chess
Fischer came up with the idea not so that humans can be computers, but because at the master level of play more and more moves are being memorized and whoever is winning in the beginning is contested by memory of openings, and at the master level slight advantages go a long way


text: Category:Book:Ada Programming

title: Category:Book:Ada Programming