text:
Wikijunior:Ancient Civilizations/Incas

The Inca lived in the Andes Mountains in South America. Their range stretched from southern Chile through Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador and into southern Colombia.

The Inca were very warlike and often attacked their neighbors to take their land. In this way, the Inca Empire, which started out small, grew to be very large. In fact, the Inca Empire was the largest empire ever in South America, and one of the largest in the world.

What did their buildings look like?
The Inca lived in stone houses varying in size. They were all built in the Andes on flat plateaus. Their temples, however, were built on circular mounds made by the Inca, sort of like slanted cylinders. At the top, there was a plateau. On this plateau, the main buildings were built.

A strange thing about the Inca was that they didn't use iron tools to help them cut and shape the stone for their houses. Instead, they used round balls of stone to pound out stone blocks for their buildings. The blocks of stone were not usually rectangles but were very strange-looking shapes that fit together much like the pieces of a puzzle. Many of the stone walls the Inca built are still so strong and well made that it is impossible to slide the blade of a knife between the stones.

What did they eat?

The Inca ate potatoes and corn. They drank llama milk and water and ate llamas and alpaca for their daily protein because they didn't have pigs, cows, sheep or turkeys. The Inca Empire had crops including maize, cocoa, beans, grains, potatoes, sweet potatoes, ulluco, oca, mashwa, pepper, tomatoes, peanuts, cashews, squash, cucumber, quinoa, gourd, cotton, talwi, carob, chirimoya, lúcuma, guayaba, and avocado.

What did they wear?
Typical Inca clothing would consist of a lightweight finely made poncho covered by a heavier, blanket-like poncho. They wore sandals and hats, some with fuzzy chin bands. Many rich Inca men wore large golden earrings as a symbol of how rich they were. Women and men wore the same clothing.

What did they believe?
The central god of the Inca religion was the sun-god Inti, the only god that had temples built for him. The sun-god was the father of the royal family. There were many gods among the Inca, but the sun-god outshone them all. The Inca also believed that there was a heaven, a hell, and a resurrection of the body after death. The Inca worshiped the dead, their ancestors, their king whom they regarded as divine, and nature and it's cycles.

What did their writing look like?

The Inca did not have a system of writing with letters or symbols. Instead, they used a special system called quipu (pronounced KEE-poo), tying knots in ropes of different colors. The ropes were kept on special belts that the quipu writers would always wear. The different colored ropes could show deaths, weddings, trade, and other things. Being a quipu writer took many years of schooling, and because very few learned, quipu readers were very important.

Are some of them famous even today?
Yma Sumac is a singer who performed Inca and South American folk songs beginning in the 1940s. She is claimed to be an Inca princess directly descended from Atahualpa.

What is left of them today?

The Inca are famous for their abandoned cities in the Andes Mountains. Some major cities like Cuzco and Machu Picchu, located in Peru, are major tourist attractions. Although many cities have been found, there are still many hidden in the jungles and under the desert floor. Archaeologists hope to one day know more about these people through their amazing artifacts so that you can have the opportunity to learn more about the Inca!

title: Wikijunior:Ancient Civilizations/Incas


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose

According to biologist Richard Dawkins, life has no purpose! This approaches the metaphysical idea of determinism which presumes every effect has a cause, so that life is simply a chemical consequence of cosmic chaos. Dawkins asserts that ethics, morality and religion are simply 'successful aspects' of the selfish gene He favours The Universal Declaration of Human Rights approach, which is roughly the naked pursuit of happiness principle enshrined in the constitution of the USA.

However, from the previous two chapters survey, it seems we could conclude that, for religion to be effective an 'ultimate goal' is needed before one can make any decision rationally. Furthermore, to evolve a moral code or religion of universal significance we need a purpose of universal significance. We therefore seek a purpose that applies beyond our culture, our species and our planet—one that is ubiquitous, timeless, consequential and fundamental, immediately recognizable as worthy of unfettered support, one that is eternally compelling, able to attract and hold followers for many generations to come.

This chapter looks for such a purpose. If one can be found it should rectify two shortages: one, provide a basis for the rationale used when making moral decisions, and two, provide a solid foundation upon which a logical future universal religion might be built should this eventually be deemed desirable.

 * 1) /Can We Adopt The Universe's Purpose?/
 * 2) /Can We Use Life's Purpose?/
 * 3) /Learning And Purpose/
 * 4) /What Purpose Can We Use?/
 * /Summary/

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


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/Can We Adopt The Universe's Purpose?

Would the universe’s purpose be such a candidate? The short answer is, no, because we know of no such purpose. The universe exists and functions and we can explain and predict much of what we observe. Nothing known to us requires its operation to be subject to the constraints of some purpose.

A number of writers have suggested that God, or some god equivalent, could have programmed the universe before it began, before the initiating singularity existed. This god could have bestowed the initial parameters and laws that would force it to ultimately achieve a precisely predetermined purpose. This, these writers state, would explain why everything is “just right” for us to be here.

Borrow and Tipler, two eminent scientists, have attempted to prove this proposition. In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they provide their rationale for stating that this universe was designed to produce intelligent life. Further, they try to show that Homo sapiens is the only form of intelligent life that can exist within this universe, and that our descendants have a specific task to perform (to regulate all matter contained within the universe). Their book makes interesting (although complex) reading.

If we want we can choose to adopt the assumption that a god predetermined a purpose for our universe and the life that it spawned. However, when doing so we should remember that this is just what was done several thousands of years ago, and those assumptions led to today’s religious beliefs. Implementing current knowledge to resurrect the same assumption ends up reintroducing the same god of old. This doesn’t help us tackle current moral questions because these questions were never asked, and so never answered, in times when our current religious texts were written. We just don’t know how prophets of old might have replied, so any statement made today is necessarily an extrapolation from what was reportedly said in the past—as such, it is simply an interpretation, and thus sure to be disputed by one religion or another.

If we are unable to know what a designing god wants, then there is little point in thinking about the possibility that a god existed (or exists) and had (or has) a purpose in its mind. This is primarily because, in our lack of knowledge, there are no bounds to what we could imagine. For example, the god could have been (or is) a spiteful monster (and a world-destroying comet could be right now on its way, because we are not turning out to be as malicious as he intended us to be . . . ). Whatever we conjure up will be drawn by the pencil of our desires and fears, and limited only by the scope of our imaginations. We gain nothing by postulating the existence of a “designer” god as Borrow and Tipler have done. We allege several gods already, and different religions’ interpretations of what each one wants seems to be adding to current confusions, not helping us rise above them.

If looking to the universe’s past to find a purpose leaves us empty-handed, what about looking to its future? We know that the universe changes. It has evolved since its time and point of origin from the very simplest that such a thing could be, to what we see today—something vast and complex. Might this change be purpose-directed?

Again, no, it does not appear to be, or at least leading authorities find no reason to think so. As far as can be determined, the contents of the universe are simply obeying known laws of physics when they change from one form to another. These laws control matter-energy interchanges, and force certain physical properties to be conserved during interactions (see ../../Gödel’s Theorem, General Systems Theory, and The Conservation Laws/). As a result, the universe unfolds in a strictly rational manner, predictable effect following deducible cause every time. (Predictable, that is, in the sense that actuaries can accurately calculate insurance risks. For instance, we can predict that life will experience more catastrophes, such as the extinctions it has endured in the past, but we cannot say exactly what will happen, nor when it will occur. Predictions can become certainties if the number of variables are reduced—for instance, I can predict that my computer will show an “a” on its monitor when I depress the “A” key. )

The changes that do occur throughout the universe are not directed toward any purpose that can be discovered from within. From analyzing the universe’s overall behaviour, we can expect only one of two outcomes. Either gravitational attraction between its contents will slow, stop, then reverse its current expansion, and everything will be pulled back again to ultimately disappear into one tiny, hot hole; or, as recent observations suggest, our universe will continue to expand forever, eventually fading into a vast, black, dead frigidity.

Thus, the answer remains no; there is no purpose to be found by examining the universe’s past, or its future. And it doesn’t help to imagine that the universe was designed before its beginning with a purpose in an external god’s mind, because we have no way of finding out what this god had in mind at the time.

No; unfortunately, the physical universe, although meeting the conditions of being virtually infinite and everlasting, seems devoid of the kind of purpose we seek.

The next obvious arena to examine is the biological universe. Let’s take a look at life itself, and ask if its presence or behaviour suggests the existence of any kind of purpose.

 * Return to Looking For A Purpose, Introduction
 * ../Can We Use Life's Purpose?/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/Can We Use Life's Purpose?

Again, the short answer is no; life exists, and its various forms and capabilities change, as shifting environmental conditions favour first one, then another, chance mutation. And that’s all that appears to be happening, as generation after generation meanders its way between birth and death. Biologists do not think that life is on a journey to anywhere. Evolution, they say, is natural selection and survival of the fit, nothing more.

Some two centuries ago, Reverend William Paley wrote that life’s complexity necessitated a creator (saying that, just as a found watch would require a watchmaker to explain its existence, so, too, do the complexities of life require a Maker). Although the concepts of mutations and natural selection readily explain how simple becomes complex over time, Paley’s misconception still exists. This impelled Richard Dawkins to write a book to put an end to this mystification. Dawkins’ text reminds us that although complex life might seem designed to non-biologists, it is simply the result of many mutational advantages being piled one upon another, generation after generation—the successful remnants of environment-surviving adaptations.

Most biologists maintain that life provides no evidence of being directed toward a purpose of any kind. However, they usually have no reason to look much beyond the collection and analysis of facts, and the formulation and testing of theories (this, after all, is their chosen mission in life). But we do have a reason to look further. It behooves us to take a second look at what is known about the origins and development of the biological universe, to see if a purpose might be hidden within the larger picture.

At least two factors that most biologists don’t usually concern themselves with can be added to our considerations. First, as discussed earlier, we can be fairly certain that life exists in many forms, all over the universe. Second, if life is so prolific (and if scientists are likely to be able to construct it in the laboratory in the not-too-distant future ), then life itself may be nothing very special.

But, what might this be suggesting? If anything, it seems to be saying just the opposite of what we might like to hear. The probable abundance and possible triviality of life seems to imply the lack, rather than the presence, of a purpose.

If life’s existence and behaviour seems purposeless, then let’s see if life’s beginning shows signs of being purpose-directed.

We earlier mentioned what is known about life’s beginning. As far as we can tell, it is simply a matter of physical laws giving rise to chemical molecules that interact, with some of these interactions eventually creating molecules that develop into living entities. There’s no more purpose to be found in such a process than there is to be found in the mere physical presence of the molecules that assemble during that process. The presence and behaviour of all matter is just another result of the presence and behaviour of the universe, and can have no more built-in purpose than the universe itself has.

Well, if the past and present tells us nothing about life having a purpose, then there is only one other place to examine—the future. As we have just mentioned, biologists usually say that they can predict nothing about life’s possible future. They know the mechanics of evolution; the fittest generally survive to parent fit offspring in greater abundance than those less fit. This behaviour doesn’t have to go anywhere; it need have no future other than to favour life’s continuation. In fact, the whole process of evolution, as it is usually described, appears to be a very laid-back process: evolve when conditions change, otherwise stay the same.

But, if we dig a little deeper, we do actually find that something more may be happening. Let me elaborate.

Evolution itself seems to be evolving. Evolution, we know, depends upon the occurrence of one or more chemical or physical happenstance’s that reshape a few of life’s molecules, which then occasionally give rise to descendants better fitted to survive environmental changes. But, this process seems to have become more than solely accidental in advanced animals. Evolution, once a passive occurrence, now occasionally seems to be an active one.

Active evolution involves two events. The first event is always passive: the occasional, random, unavoidable incident that produces a DNA nucleotide change in sperm, ovum, or zygote. A genetic mutation, which (together with its outcome—good, bad or inconsequential) will be carried into descendent generations, should they survive. These descendants may, or may not, be able to utilize this change.

Natural selection tells us that the environment provides the criteria that determines if the inherited change will be beneficial or harmful (dark stripes help to camouflage a zebra in dappled woods, for instance; they may make the animal visible to predators on sunlit plains. Thus, whether a gene mutation helps the animal to hide and survive to procreate depends upon where that animal lives.) However, there can be more going on than just passive use of an inherited feature.

Sometimes the modification to a body structure or system is passed on but lies dormant, unused, perhaps eventually to atrophy from neglect. However, occasionally, the evolutionary process is taken to a second level. Some circumstance (almost always an environmental change) causes the organism to discover how a latent ability might put to use. But, only organisms capable of learning can experience this second step, as will be illustrated.

This two-step evolutionary process seldom takes place in one generation. Mutations that are immediately beneficial are those that do not require learning anything new. Millions of these have occurred throughout life’s evolution—for example, more appropriate body structure, more efficient energy conversion, more attractive plumage, more effective camouflage, etc. These and other such changes benefit with little or no learning curve to conquer. But some parental DNA mutations bring no immediate benefit (or penalty), and these may be passed on unused and un-noticed through many generations. Only when an environmental change offers a niche where these changes might be put to profitable use, may they benefit the bearer. Thus, for example, the uses to which an opposable thumb may be put, or the advantages vocal chords offer language users, must be learned before they can benefit the possessor. Steven Pinker provides an example that illustrates how an ability most take for granted is actually the result of learning how to use an inherited capability. He notes that we are able to see stereoscopically because we grow two, spatially separated eyes, but we each must first train our brain to use them efficiently, and then train our mind to interpret what has been seen. Bear in mind that eyes evolved from light-sensitive cells. When these first developed, no creature possessing them would “know” how they might best be put to use; each slight advantage would have to be discovered, then experimented with, to learn how to interpret the new perceptions. Evolved change by itself is insufficient in such cases.

“Learn” is an active verb, and learning occurs in animals, but not in plants. Animals use their brains and minds to direct their bodies to obtain food and mates, and to avoid predators. What an animal learns and puts into practice can be copied by peers, and by offspring as they emulate their parent’s behaviour. Learned beneficial changes in both mental outlook and physical ability are thus passed on to successive generations.

Simple organisms like plants have not been able to evolve in this manner. Thus, the evolutionary process has itself evolved over time. In its original form, evolution benefits (or harms) future generations without their active participation. But in its later form, evolution can be a two-stage active process that operates only if animals learn how to take advantage of latent abilities.

Recently, evolution added a third capability and level to its repertoire: it can now plan its own future. Let me explain.

Two things happened after humans learned how to speak and write. First, we dramatically increased the speed at which we acquire knowledge, adapt, and change our behaviour. We learn how to extract metals, then build tools and weapons. We learn about genetics, then breed hardier crops and livestock. We learn about fats and cholesterol, then modify our diet. We learn how to survive in space, then go to the moon. What one discovers, others put into effect—increasingly within the same generation.

Second, we became able to plan our future. We have learned how to apply our knowledge to envision a desirable future, then chart a path toward that future. That is how we reached the moon; that is how we might one day reach other planets.

In essence, we now use our third-level thinking ability to consciously consider what the future holds possible. We then use it again to plan the actions necessary to obtain our desired goal.

This ability, I contend, is significant enough to be thought of as a third-stage in the evolutionary process. We have evolved to the stage of being able to take charge of—to be responsible for—our own future. Indeed, humans are verging upon the ability to take control of evolution itself. In short, we are no longer animals to whom change simply happens, or that must learn to take advantage of a latent ability before we can benefit. We have now become animals that can use words to select, far ahead of time, the kind of benefits we want evolutionary change to produce: we can then produce that change.

Is it not ironic that, just as we are learning how to plan and achieve our own future, this future can seem meaningless? If the universe and life exist with no discernible purpose, then everything subsumed within these two concepts also lacks purpose. No purpose, ergo, no meaning. What are we to do?

The answer is clear to me. If neither the universe nor life itself evince a purpose, if there is nothing anywhere that provides rational and universal direction and meaning, and if, as has been many times stated, we simply must have a purpose if we are to make decisions rationally, then we must invent one. To avoid stagnating in a moral quagmire, we must formulate a proxy purpose. Our history of developing religions when searching for nonexistent answers demonstrates that we have done this many times in the past. We can do so again. Therefore, if, as concluded in the Summary of Present Day Religions, the invented purposes of past religions can no longer guide our contemporary moral decision making, then it is time to contrive a new purpose that will.

The question, nevertheless, remains: what purpose do we devise?

To ask and answer the question.

 * Return to Looking For A Purpose, Introduction
 * ../Learning And Purpose/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/Learning And Purpose

To better understand the rationale behind the choice of purpose that I will be proposing, it is necessary to first say a little more about the nature and consequences of learning.

Learning brings understanding, and understanding opens doors toward modifying and controlling events and things. When humans first lit fires in caves to keep warm, they were using what they had learned. These days, just about every aspect of our environment can be modified using our knowledge. However, while we have become adept at modifying, our ability to control is still in its infancy.

Just think what we might be able to control in the future. Scientists may soon be able to use stem cells and a patient’s DNA to grow body tissues and organs for “rejection-less” transplants, and physicians may be able to suppress the development of (perhaps even eradicate) most or all of the approximately 1,500 diseases thought to be genetically induced. Before long, we expect to be mining our neighbouring planets for rare minerals (NASA is already investigating the techniques needed), then manufacturing products on those planets. This increases the probability of eventually doing the same on exoplanets orbiting neighbouring stars. One day, perhaps not long now, physicists will learn how to build machines that will control nuclear fusion (the process that drives the stars) and so obtain virtually unlimited amounts of energy. Some day we might even be able to scan and map the position of each atom within a living entity. All we will then need is a means of fashioning atoms to such a blueprint, to recreate the exact creature, with its entire memory intact, anywhere we position a receiver.

Learning, then controlling, is limited by only two things: by our mind’s capabilities and the constraints of the universe. There will always be facts we do not know and events we cannot control, but these will become fewer and fewer in number over the centuries and millennia ahead. Someday, perhaps a billion years into the future, perhaps sooner, life forms—possibly even remote descendants of humankind—may learn how to control the behaviour of the stars. Maybe even reposition galaxies! No law of physics prohibits such activities.

Learning how to progressively exploit our environment will not stop until life itself ceases. (We will see why this is so in the next chapter.) The extinction of one species does not prevent life from continuing. If, for example, all species upon an island are eradicated, the life continuing in the surrounding seas, the air above, on other lands, will soon encroach to colonize the empty niches. If we annihilate ourselves, other species will survive and fill the void we leave. The story of life would continue, and we would not even be missed, a few thousand years into the future. If some occurrence were to obliterate every living thing upon this planet, life would begin again once conditions permit. This is because all the while, everywhere throughout the universe, life explores and exploits its inherited options.

Inevitably, ultimately, life will learn enough to be able to control all that can be controlled from its position within the universe. Evolution will culminate in a life form that seemingly possesses god-like powers. It won’t be a god—it will still be just life. But what an entity!

It is easy to understand why this must be so: to those living just a few hundred years ago, people of this century would appear to have abilities approaching omnipotence. Any inexplicable controlling ability may confer such a title, and impart a mystical awe—ask any successful magician. If electronic, medical and technological progress continue at today’s pace (to say nothing of the many other fields currently being exploited), then in no more than one or two hundred years time humans will certainly possess abilities that would be incomprehensible and astonishing if witnessed today. But think ahead another two thousand, or two million years. How would such powers not seem omnipotent, and where does this accumulation end?

Yet, we cannot say that it is life’s purpose to develop such abilities. Evolution’s consequences may produce a seemingly omnipotent entity, but we cannot state that this endpoint must therefore be the inherent purpose that guides life’s evolution. Immense competencies accrue simply because life compiles useful abilities, compounding one upon another as it evolves—progeny taking synergistic advantage of its inheritances. As previously stated, we cannot say that life is purpose-driven because we would first have to say that life’s supersystem, the universe, was purpose-driven. And, since we can’t position ourselves outside of our universe, this can never be determined.

This omnipotent consequence of evolution is just that—a consequence. It is not, and should not be considered, an ordained purpose.

 * Return to Looking For A Purpose, Introduction
 * ../What Purpose Can We Use?/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/What Purpose Can We Use?

So, life and our universe have no discernable purpose. Let us return to where we started this chapter and discuss what alternative purpose, if selected, might give us a vision that we can live with and, more importantly, live for.

Please do not misunderstand what I am about to propose. Life, as I have said, cannot be proven to be directed toward a purpose. Neither existing nor evolving is a purpose—these are simply states of affairs. Demonstrating a trend toward complexity does not demonstrate purpose—it demonstrates only what happens when something new is added to something old. Nor does the ability to learn then apply what has been learned prove that life has a purpose.

But we need a purpose to rationally make the many moral decisions thrust upon us by scientific and technological advances. And we need a universally accepted one if we are to achieve any degree of unanimity. So, one must be contrived.

What I am about to propose we adopt is based upon what we now know about the universe and about our abilities within that universe. Two millennia ago, we knew little and could control next to nothing. With ideas inherited from the Pharaohs and earlier civilizations, the only future we could imagine preparing for was our personal entry into an assumed afterlife. Times are much different now. Today, we think about the future of others, including other species, as much as we think about our own. And we are beginning to realize that, collectively, we have the potential to achieve and control almost anything we care to dream about.

A word of caution before we proceed. In selecting a purpose to guide us, we must be careful not to separate ourselves from life. Past religions did this—humans held themselves different from, and superior to, all other forms of life. We know better than this, nowadays. Life itself is our parent. Other living entities are our siblings. We have no more, and no less, purpose for living than life itself has. Thus, whatever we select to be a purpose for humans, must be a purpose that applies to all other living entities, including those beyond our planet.

What, then, do we choose to be our universal purpose?

Given that there is no detectable purpose pre-designed into life or the universe, then, if we must have one, we must adopt a surrogate.

To my mind, the only viable option is to support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability. Such a purpose is universal and rational; it is a purpose that will last as long as life itself lasts. It accommodates the whole of life, and shows that we care about more than just our own well-being. It declares that we value life for its own sake and think little about the death that must follow, taking it simply as the price to be paid for living. Such a choice, if made, would be so all-encompassing it would warrant being called a “meta-purpose.” If we indeed determine that all evidence points to life’s evolution ultimately possessing omnipotent abilities, if selecting such an outcome could clear the way to making decisions that are both moral and beneficial to all forms of life (and this claim has yet to be substantiated, but we will examine both ideas later), then how can this not be the most logical “surrogate purpose” to choose?

(Indeed, we don’t really have any other choice if the review conducted in Part Four has any merit, for, as we will see, no other purpose is as likely to ensure our future survival.)

What this might mean, and how we might obtain benefit by adopting it, must wait to be explored until Part Four. One other matter should be presented first; a speculation about what could be causing life to evolve toward such an end.

 * Return to Looking For A Purpose, Introduction
 * ../Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/Summary

This has been a chapter of denials, where we finally acknowledge that the universe evolves only in obedience to laws that have been in existence since the moment of its birth—the purpose of which, if pre-programmed by some external deity, can never be discovered. We acknowledged also that life can arise and progress with no purpose apparent. The first life (wherever and whenever it arose) formed from atoms and molecules because conditions were conducive, and it has since evolved to become what exists today for exactly the same reason. When our star dies, so will our home, and all life that remains at home.

Some readers may find this Part of the book distressing. Such bold statements about the triviality of life and our species are not enjoyable to read. The real state of affairs is that there is no candy coating. There is no Father-in-Heaven looking down and caring for or about us—our prayers serve only to console ourselves. It is sobering to confront such truths, but are they really that much of a surprise? Haven’t we all previously, at least briefly, suspected as much, deep down inside, at one time or another?

Much as we might like it to be otherwise, we are truly alone and adrift. Alone, but accompanied by all the other life forms that this universe contains. Adrift, but slowly finding our way from ignorance to wisdom. Constantly moving from the past, when life knew nothing, to the future, when life will know almost everything. God, if He ever existed, cut us all free when He released the universe. That was when free will began, and this is exactly what free will entails: facing up to the facts, recognizing that we make the bed we lie upon, and taking the responsibility to make decisions rationally as we travel along the evolutionary pathway.

But, what a journey it is! Especially now, when we are at the cusp of understanding and controlling so much. So many possibilities, so many choices; the future can seem overwhelming—indeed frightening—at times. But life can become glorious and wonderful again, bright from a new guiding light—once we build the beacon.

I think that there is much to gain by adopting life’s evolutionary consequence as a surrogate purpose, and using that to guide our decision making. Part Four examines some reasons for thinking so, and suggests what might be done with the visions such a choice generates.

But, before we rush ahead; what if these conjectures about life’s outcome are fantasies? No one wants to be misled by yet another set of assumptions, inventions and falsehoods. Although life may well have learned how to control some things, is there any plausible reason to think that it will continue to do so? From where does this ability to learn and to apply such learning come, and is this source a permanent feature of life?

When I was able to step back from my “revelation” (see ../../Creativity, Free Will, And A Revelation/) a decade or so after it happened, I began wondering what could possibly cause evolution itself to evolve. Why should it change from being just a passive “reaction-to-events” process, to becoming an active “determinator-of-its-own-future” process? I knew of none; however, such a transformation has happened, so there must be a cause to be discovered. The next chapter explores one possibility.

 * Return to Looking For A Purpose, Introduction
 * Life And Exploiting, Introduction


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Life And Exploiting

Leaving until later a discussion of the many advantages that might be gained by doing so, Chapter Nine concluded by suggesting we adopt as a “meta-purpose” the idea of supporting life’s journey to its consequence of becoming an omnipotent entity. But, as it did so, it emphasized that this whole notion might only be a possibility, and cautioned against building edifices upon faulty assumptions.

However, there may well be a reason why life, very probably not a direct descendant of life on this planet, but life, somewhere, will eventually come to possess omnipotent abilities. What we may now think to be simply a fantasy may actually occur—eventually. This chapter looks for and attempts to provide a possible reason why this might be so by reviewing what we know about life’s behaviour, then speculating about how it came to be this way.

Speculations usually have little merit beyond suggesting lines of further inquiry, but this one, to the extent that it has any validity, provides something more. It warns us to be wary of human nature, particularly as we accumulate knowledge. Thus Chapter Ten serves two purposes—it offers a theory that might explain why life seems to become ever more complex and proficient, and it reminds us that increasing powers bring increasing opportunities for “bad” as well as for “good” behaviour.

 * 1) /The Behaviour Of Living Things/
 * 2) /Energy And Life/
 * 3) /Life's Beginning/
 * 4) /Exploiting/
 * 5) /Complexity, Intelligence And Evolution/
 * /Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Life And Exploiting/The Behaviour Of Living Things

We begin by noting a few facts about life’s general behaviour, starting with plants. Outwardly, plant life might appear to be passive and uneventful; endless cycles of germination, development, replication and death, with random mutations—possibly of significance to future species—happening in between. A cursory look at the life of animals might suggest the same pattern. However, as we will soon be reminded, the full story is much more complex. Each one of life’s many species is competitive, assertive, territorial, and occasionally very aggressive. Each does its utmost to expand into neighbouring territory, wherever it exists and whenever the opportunity arises.

Plants fit this description, once we look at what happens over several generations. Most gardeners know that any plant will expand its domain unless curbed. Creeping Charlie is a good example; it will sow seeds and extend runners ad nauseam, and is very difficult to eradicate. Mushroom fairy rings graphically and accurately portray this expansionist behaviour, as underground mycelia spread, then fruit. In fact, the history of any plant species may be viewed as one long quest to gain territory, and an outside intercession of some kind or another is always needed to halt the process. Plants invariably enlarge their domain until prevented by an inhospitable climate or by soil that lacks nutrients or is toxic in some way, or until they are overcome by some disease agent or eaten by insects or animals.

Insects exhibit exactly the same behaviour. We have all likely read about calculations showing that the offspring from one pair of flies, unless checked in some way, would number enough to blanket the world after a few weeks. Only impediments such as lack of food, its own excrement, poisons of some kind, parasites, attacks from aggressors seeking to control the same environment—some kind of external force—will stop the population from exploding. Locusts dramatically demonstrate this phenomenon. Every few years, huge swarms of these grasshoppers arise and decimate vast areas. Insects, like plants, multiply, strengthen their control of local food sources, increase again in number, move outward, and repeat the sequence if not halted by an opposing force. In fact, it has been said that if a catastrophe killed most of the life on Earth, insects would survive and evolve to dominate what remained.

Animals, too, behave in this manner, as demonstrated by many animal population-cycle studies. Plant food supplies increase, so the number of rabbits increases; the fox population then builds, and a bunny take-over is prevented. The number of rabbits then decreases, so the fox population declines, and before we know it, we have rabbits galore again. (It is a seven-year cycle, roughly, in this example; eight years for the lemming/stoat cycle.)

No species self-limits its own population. Microbes and mice, birds and bees, fish and flowers, horses and humans; all multiply profusely unless prevented. An external agent is always required to stop the expansion. Not infrequently, this external factor is itself living; it stops the growth of another by using this other as a source of food. The net effect of this has been to produce a precarious balance, maintained as our biosphere. The balance is preserved by each species defending what it possesses, and attacking to take what it needs.

Now, let’s consider what all this might imply. If every form of life behaves this assertively, then the assertive trait must have been present very early in the evolutionary chain. And, indeed, it was, because exploiting surrounding territory turns out to be the main characteristic that distinguishes living material from non-living material. To understand this more completely, we must again start at the beginning of the story.

 * Return to Life And Exploiting, Introduction
 * ../Energy And Life/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Life And Exploiting/Energy And Life

Biological life would not be possible without chemical interactions. In turn, chemical interactions would not be possible without physical interactions, and no physical interaction occurs that does not involve an energy exchange; consequently, all biological processes depend upon energy exchanges. Clearly it is important to understand a little about this phenomenon if we are to understand how life began and how it proceeds.

We learned in school that almost all life on our planet depends, either directly or indirectly, upon the sun’s energy, converted to usable form through photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, chlorophyll converts simple molecules of water and carbon dioxide into more complex molecules (particularly sugars). Photons of sunlight provide the energy required to join the simple molecules together. This energy doesn’t disappear, it becomes locked within the larger molecules (held within the electromagnetic forces that bind the chemical elements together). Plants utilize these larger molecules as nutrients fuelling other biochemical processes (breaking the molecules apart releases the binding energy). When consumed, these plants in turn fuel micro-organisms, other plants, insects and animals. In this way, the sun provides most of the energy needed by life on this planet.

Before delving a little deeper into what happens during energy exchanges within living entities, it is helpful to review a few features of non-living energy exchanges. The latter have been occurring since the universe began, and they hold the key to understanding life’s creation—that instant when energy-processing chemical molecules first became energy-processing living molecules.

All chemical processes, living or non-living, involve energy transfers. Energy is either added to (or taken from) the involved atoms and molecules (by rearranging their electronic configurations). This energy is either taken from (or added to) the external environment. For instance, the energy required to form an iron compound when iron dissolves in an acid solution, is obtained from the energy released as the relatively complex configurations of electron orbitals in the acid are rearranged to form somewhat simpler ones. Forming iron sulphate in this manner needs no additional energy from outside the interacting molecules. (Quite the opposite; this process is exothermic—it releases energy in the form of heat as it proceeds.) Burning wood is another exothermic reaction; once started, the process sustains itself. When ignited, complex organic wood molecules break apart and release energy, only some of which is needed to join carbon from the wood and oxygen from the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide and other molecules. The rest of the energy is radiated away as heat and warms the universe.

Many chemical interactions do not release energy. These processes, termed endothermic, will not proceed, even after being started, without the continuous addition of energy. Producing plastics from oil, or forming sugar molecules by photosynthesis, are examples of endothermic reactions. In such cases, the final molecular compounds contain more energy than was originally held within the atomic structures of the forming components. This energy must be added before the bonds that hold the more highly structured molecules together will form.

Although every chemical process involves energy transfers, there is a significant difference between non-living (abiotic) chemical processes and living or biological (biotic) chemical processes. Abiotic chemical processes destroy or permanently rearrange the molecular structure of the constituents taking part in the process—the end products are different from those present at the start. However, healthy living cells do not permanently destroy, rearrange (other than when growing, learning or reproducing), nor deplete their own internal molecular configurations to obtain energy. They take what energy they need from their environment, eventually giving all of it back (in degraded form). While molecular configurations change continuously during life’s many and varied processes, they are re-established before these processes end. A living entity, at the end of a long day of processing food, is much the same as it was when it started. (Indeed, unless growing, learning or reproducing, any difference between start and end configurations would be due to disease or damage.)

This energy transformation process, whereby molecules gather energy from their environment, utilize it in various ways, yet retain their unique identity unchanged after the energy utilization, distinguishes biotic from abiotic matter. Thus, the first molecular complex able to sustain an energy-transfer process unchanged, using energy extracted exclusively from the external environment, became the first living entity.

 * Return to Life And Exploiting, Introduction
 * ../Life's Beginning/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Life And Exploiting/Life's Beginning

The transformation from non-living to living requires two steps. First, environmental sources must provide the energy needed to add an atom or two (also taken from the environment) to a molecular complex. This changes the molecule, as it now has one or more additional atoms and a little bit more energy (the amount needed to attach the extra atoms). In the second step, this process is reversed; the added atoms and energy have to be returned to the environment—otherwise nothing more than a chemical activity is occurring (or the entity is growing, see below). Movements within the fluid environment surrounding the molecule would bring new nutrients, and the process would repeat. (Fluid environments, liquid or gas, are vital to life’s beginnings because life needs a continuous supply of energy and raw materials to survive. A point of interest: the complex would be slowly propelled and could stumble upon its own supplies, if its configuration ejected surplus atoms repeatedly in one direction.)

(Where supplies exist to form one kind of molecular complex [see Possible Origins Of Life On Earth concerning life’s beginning], other kinds of biotic complexes might also arise. Once this happens, the most efficient process would sweep up available resources. Environmental variations would favour the formation of different complexes, however. Thus, right at life’s beginning, natural selection seems inevitable.)

Occasionally, different atoms may have become permanently attached to the original molecular complex. Adding extra atoms to any molecule changes its properties; most changes would presumably prevent the complex from continuing its energy processing, and it would “die.” However, some additions would not cause “death” and would thereby enlarge the complex, which might eventually grow big enough to split apart or replicate. However, it is not growing, nor even reproducing, that hallmarks life; it is the particular kind of energy transformations that extract from “without” to utilize “within,” while the totality within retains its overall identity. Homeostasis first arose at life’s beginning, and remains a fundamental property of life, equal in stature to life’s ability to process energy.

Only one such molecule needed to form for life to begin. However, it is likely that conditions permitting the formation of the first self-sustaining molecular complex occurred in many places. If so, then many such molecules, identical or differing slightly one from another, could have formed more or less simultaneously.

The first bounded, self-sustaining, molecular complexes might not have been able to grow and split. Many might have formed only to be broken apart by external forces after existing for a period of time. Nevertheless, this situation would provide opportunities for molecular alterations to occur, and thus a variety of molecular structures to have arisen. Eons probably passed before such complexes became capable of self-replication.

Replication requires a means whereby each internal physical/chemical process is duplicated in the replicated entity. A bacterium reproduces by binary fission, whereby its single chromosome replicates and the bacterium splits into two. Some one-celled animals and plants also simply duplicate each internal component then split apart (amoebae, for example, replicate this way). At some time, one or more of the prototype living molecular complexes must have developed the ability to replicate (and probably did so by growing, then fissioning).

We can now expand upon the point made in ../The Behaviour Of Living Things/ in this chapter: life assertively reaches for and grabs hold of new territory because it needs the energy this territory contains to continue living. Life began as an energy-exploiting process and continued in that manner. It later developed the ability to replicate and hence to evolve in the sense we use that word. Subsequent beneficial mutations conferred an increasing ability to exploit different environmental energy niches, leading, slowly but inexorably, to the complexities of the many different life forms we see all around us today.

The phenomenon of life turns out to be just the behaviour of a bunch of complex molecules, co-operating within one body in order to exploit the many various environments inside and outside that body, to obtain the energy they need to sustain and replicate themselves. The whole body is said to be “living,” but it is so only because each one of its constituent processing molecular complexes is living. In essence, biology is chemistry-in-action, and chemistry is physics-in-action. Feynman knew, decades ago, that life’s basis had to be this simple.

 * Return to Life And Exploiting, Introduction
 * ../Exploiting/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Life And Exploiting/Exploiting

Now to return to where this discussion began. Living entities, like automobiles, need constant refuelling to run. Competition for resources, pitting one life form against another, is the inevitable result. The most able become parents to offspring that genetically inherit their parents’ capabilities. In this way, the “exploiting” trait was strengthened as it self-selected down through the ages. The urge to exploit must by now be genetically encoded. The natural world of plants and animals is not a paradise where every living thing exists in peaceful harmony with every other living thing. It is a battleground of constant aggression, each species against all others, and within a species, one member against another. (In fact, it is precisely because species members compete against each other that species evolve into different species, as the Grant’s work with the Galápagos finches showed.) Nature only appears peaceful because we rarely notice the underlying conflict. Expansion and conquest take place slowly, as with plants; or unnoticed, as is usually the case with insects; or hidden in the underbrush, as happens mostly with birds and animals. When we eulogize the peacefulness and serenity of nature we do not recognize the irony we mouth. All species compete for territory to obtain resources. As these resources become depleted it is inevitable that this competition will become more and more intense, most particularly between members of the same or closely related species, for they eat the same types of food and prefer the same kind of habitat.

It may not be pleasant to think that life aggressively exploits its surroundings, battling with any life form that gets in its way, but that is the nature of the beast. (In fact, as Dawkins stated, animal speed, eyesight, hearing, and so on, increases precisely because they are taking part in “arms races.” )

The notion of a non-evolving, non-varying, non-exploiting, life form is non-sense. Non-exploiting life forms are dead life forms—living and exploiting are one and the same process. Further, much as we might dislike the idea that we humans exploit, we can find plenty of evidence that even the best of us live via exploiting and protecting what we have. Who does not eat? Who would not buy stock if a genuine opportunity to gain presented itself? Actions such as these ably demonstrate that we all exploit when given the opportunity. Humans may not exploit every time, and we are usually selective in what, and who, we exploit. But some people are less circumspect than others, and some of their exploiting activities cause extensive grief and trouble to many. (This is a topic to be discussed further, in Part Four, when we explore how excessive exploitation might rightly be identified and constrained.)

 * Return to Life And Exploiting, Introduction
 * ../Complexity, Intelligence And Evolution/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Life And Exploiting/Complexity, Intelligence And Evolution

Once begun, life continued—exploiting, growing, replicating and diversifying, extracting energy from disorder, being occasionally knocked back many stages as environmental catastrophes occurred, eventually to arrive as we find it today. This continuous pattern is all that has been needed for life to become first, ever more complex, and second, ever more intelligent, as we will see.

The majority of life forms that populate this planet today are incredibly more complex than those that existed a billion years ago. Of course, ever since Darwin proposed his theory of evolution we have known why organisms become more complex. Since most changes are merely modifications to an existing structure, their incorporation adds another layer to that structure. Complexity results, simply because amendments are necessarily added to what has existed before. Many of the old abilities remain, most still active underneath—the new ones simply extend the entity’s capabilities.

But before they can serve any useful purpose, many changes in body structure and functioning have first to be controlled and directed. A slight increase in finger length or joint flexibility, for instance, offers no survival benefit at all unless the animal can manipulate the modification to gain an advantage over its competitors. This almost always calls for an increase in physical or body-activating skills, which in turn call for an increase in the mental skills needed to manipulate body parts, or to utilize improvements in sensory perceptions.

Motor ability does not come out of the blue; in the modified finger example above, the change requires controlling by finger, wrist, and/or arm muscles, which in turn have to be exerted in new ways. As an example, random poking into crevices to extract bugs or maggots would flex and train these muscles, and this activity feeds information to the brain. Over time, the brain learns which incoming stimuli have been produced by which finger movements. Sooner or later, the brain reverses this process, sending impulses to a specific finger to produce the desired results. Thus, a genetic mutation that caused a body change has led to a new skill being learned, a result noted in the previous chapter in the suggestion that the evolutionary process itself has evolved due to an animal’s ability to learn.

Yet the increased mental capacity is not inheritable. The animal’s offspring learn, through observation, repetitive play and practice, how to use their body’s abilities. Other times, as often with humans, they are deliberately taught. What is learned is stored via synapse development between the brain’s neurons, and becomes part of one or more of the animal’s mental constructs. Infants’ brains explore the body’s capabilities and limitations; they learn what can be controlled by attempting many movements and activities. Additional, mutation-created, physical capabilities require additional, learned, mental capabilities, to obtain this control. As noted in The Mind, learning (linking the information held within neural networks) and intelligence are different aspects of the same phenomenon. Thus, evolution trends toward intelligence simply because a greater intelligence is needed to control a more complex body.

Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, i.e., in earlier terms, the ability to recognize new relationships amid the memories and stimuli present within the mind, to make new neural connections, then to apply this new understanding in some useful way. It is not the mere possession of a large storehouse of facts, theories, or knowledge. These are just the material, the nuts and bolts, with which intelligence works to build theories and constructs, to solve problems and make decisions. Knowledge can be lost in one generation; intelligence cannot.

Two points must be emphasized. First, evolution trends toward complexity and intelligence, not toward humans. There is nothing inevitable or sacrosanct about our current dominance on this planet. Any language-using species will develop a similar intelligence, given time, although that species’ morphology and history would likely nudge its intelligence to develop in different directions from ours. Second, the fact that intelligence develops is not evidence that life has been directed toward it. Life evolves the way it does solely as a consequence of the physical parameters present at the universe’s birth, those that have structured every item and every event since that time. This accounts for all that exists and all that occurs. Intelligence is no different from other phenomena and needs no other kind of explanation.

 * Return to Life And Exploiting, Introduction
 * ../Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Life And Exploiting/Summary

Once again we have attempted to ascertain where we are directed by an analysis of the facts, and once again we are brought to the same conclusion. Nothing other than the universe’s inaugural physics has been needed to bring into existence everything that lies about us. It has taken more than a dozen billion years to produce us. We cannot predict what billions of years more will bring, but we can predict that life’s evolution will continue for as long as the universe has energy sources to exploit. And we can predict that life will continue its trend toward greater intelligence, because we can foresee that the energy it needs to survive will become progressively harder to procure. Thus, the universe’s initiating conditions alone seem to demand the eventual formation of an entity possessing what we would today call omnipotent abilities.

Barrow and Tipler reach the same conclusion. In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle they do their best to prove that life must continue to expand until it can regulate everything within every universe that exists. I do not think that we can categorically state that such a life form must evolve, but I do think that its eventual appearance is highly likely. This is why I suggest making this consequence the “purpose” we are seeking. An artifice, certainly, but a necessary one, in the absence of any more-irrefutable purpose. A “surrogate purpose” if you like, but one that is more than adequate for, as we will see, it offers a profound morality-guiding potential.

Feinberg, in The Prometheus Project, suggests that we deliberately choose the goal of creating a universal consciousness, then work toward its realization. It is preferable and more realistic, I think, to let life develop its own way to its ultimate “goal.” All we need do, to survive and grow, is to support, rather than hinder, life’s progress. Life’s “goal” may not be to possess god-like abilities. But it seems likely that evolution’s trend toward intelligence will bring such a being (or, at least, such a capability) into existence. I’m simply proposing that we consider this eventuality, think about adopting it as a surrogate “meta-purpose,” and—if we think it useful to do so—use it to guide certain aspects of our global decision making. For just as long as it suits our needs. If it turns out later, when we know more, that life’s evolution is trending toward some other outcome, then that will be the time to re-evaluate our choice of guiding “purpose.”

Similar recommendations have been made by others, but perhaps none are as appropriate to the theme of this book as one made by Ursula Goodenough. She saw the need to have and be guided by a planetary ethic and proposed “The Epic of Evolution.” Yes, indeed. This is exactly what we need.

How we might go about developing such an ethic and what it might entail are topics that will be discussed in Part Four.

 * Return to Life And Exploiting, Introduction
 * Conclusion


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Conclusion to Part Three

That life evolves, and increases in complexity and in intelligence, is a fact. Why it does so is a theory, and natural selection is a very good one indeed. Life’s exploitation of nature is a fact. The way it may have begun doing so, sketched in Complexity, Intelligence And Evolution, is little more than speculation. While we can ignore theories and speculations (all we lose is a degree of understanding), if we ignore facts we may lose our species’ survival.

All life needs energy, and all life, wherever it exists throughout the universe, will be following the same steps; surviving if able to exploit an energy niche, dying if not, with survivors who possess the ability eventually moving out to exploit resources of neighbouring environments.

Life learns what it can about its environment in order to better exploit what is available. Increases in knowledge are accompanied by increases in the ability to control, a necessary feat if life is to extract all that is available from a declining resource. This results in what has occurred on this planet—life becomes more complex, and its problem-solving ability or “intelligence” develops. In retrospect, humans of past cultures appear primitive. So will we, when looked back upon by life in the distant future.

A million years, even a hundred million years, is nothing to life. It has already existed on this planet for more than three billion years; our sun will still be providing life-giving energy another four billion years from now. Life here and further out in the universe, appears to have all the time it needs to reach its full potential.

To reiterate; the possibility that life will eventually evolve into an omnipotent being is not life’s purpose (unless we return to imagining a god pre-designing the universe toward this end). Life needs no purpose to evolve; all it needs is the ability and freedom to exploit environmental resources. Nonetheless, possession of god-like or omnipotent abilities seems very likely to be life’s eventual outcome.

(We will be referring to the idea of life evolving to become an omnipotent Being several times. This entity needs some kind of name. [As noted in Learning And Purpose, footnote 3, de Chardin called a similar culmination to life’s evolution the Omega Point.] As an irreverent convenience, I’ll call it oB, short for omnipotent Being.)

It might be simpler to believe that a god existed before the universe began, that it started the universe and that its laws created all that we find within. By believing so, all our unknowns are rolled into one, and we feel less driven to find the evidence required to support such an assumption. It would also be especially comforting to believe that this god plays some ongoing part in humankind’s existence. However, miracles are rare and highly suspect to anyone with a logical mind. No rational person sits down and waits for a miracle to get them out of a predicament.

Furthermore, it is irrational to believe that solely one’s own religion, and no other, holds the truth. Humans have thought this way for long enough, and, after centuries of disagreement, culture clashes, fighting and wars, have ended up where we are today—amid much religious bitterness, baggage, and confusion.

We can make a fresh start. We can learn from and apply, rather than deny or distort, the scientific facts we have uncovered. We can start by being rational, just as people tried to be hundreds or thousands of years ago when founding the religions we have inherited. We can consider what evidence there is to support the proposed meta-purpose, the conjecture that life itself will evolve to possess omnipotent abilities. Those for whom the evidence is strong enough may, if they also think the suggestion has merit, adopt it as the purpose they use to guide collective decision making (possibly in the manner suggested in ../Determining Moral Behaviours/).

That many, even most, of the world will continue to follow the dictates issued by their current religion is inevitable. It also matters little, and is not unwelcome. Rather, it is desirable, for individual freedom (in all actions that do not harm others) is essential to life’s vitality. The universal religion (whose development is touched upon in ../A Universal Religion/) does not replace existing religions. It is best regarded as an “umbrella” doctrine whose principal use is to provide moral guidance relevant to the collective action of communities and nations when guidance is otherwise confused or non-existent. With careful development, the old and the new tenets need not compete; they can reinforce each other, with one lending a hand when the other calls for aid.

 * Postscript: Gödel’s Theorem, General Systems Theory, and The Conservation Laws
 * Postscript: Origin Theory Modifications


text:
Voice over IP

Contents

 * 1) /Introduction/
 * 2) /Moving Away from Traditional Telephony/
 * 3) /Standard Architectures for Next Generation Networks/
 * 4) /VoIP Protocols, Hardware, and Software/
 * 5) /VoIP Gateways and PABX Integration/
 * 6) /Advanced VoIP Configuration/
 * 7) /ENUM and E146 Technology/
 * 8) /Reference/

title: Voice over IP


text:
User:69.19.246.29

LK -- Somewhere on the Pacific Slope of the USA -- August 22, 2005

title: User:69.19.246.29


text:
The Linux Kernel/Booting

What does the kernel do when you boot your computer? There are several major steps that happen prior to the logon screen appearing when you boot the GNU/Linux system. In order they are:

Firmware/Post
Your computer firmware/BIOS (Basic Input Output System) is a small computer program whose starting address is loaded into the program counter register of your computer's CPU when power is applied to your system. The firmware/POST (Power-On Self Test) performs a few rudimentary tests on your computer system (usually memory checks, including possibly a barber-pole memory sieve routine to check your memory, checks to see if you have a keyboard, mouse, hard drive, etc. on your system. It then goes through a user defined list of devices, looking for a small program called a boot loader.  The list of devices could be a CD-ROM, DVD drive, hard disk, etc. When it finds a bootloader, it loads the boot loader's starting address into the CPU's program counter register.

Bootloader
The Linux bootloader may be LILO, or now more commonly GRUB. The bootloader may have only one operating system to boot, or it may have several, and if it has several, it presents a list of which system to load. The operating system need not be GNU/Linux.

If the GNU/Linux operating system is selected, and the system is on Intel X86/32 hardware, then the bootloader is running in "real" x86 mode (running as if the CPU is an 8086), even though the processor may be a Pentium 4/Celeron/Xeon.

The job of the bootloader is to reset all CPU registers, load an operating system into memory and start it running by loading the starting address into the CPU's Program Counter. Since the Intel 8086 couldn't support more than 640k of memory and the modern Linux kernel is bigger than 640k, special jump instructions (trampoline) are used to load the compressed Linux kernel called the zImage into memory.

The bootloader loads several programs to help it do this job, including setup.S and system.

setup.S is responsible for getting the system data from the BIOS, and putting it into appropriate places in system memory. setup.S asks the BIOS for memory, disk, and other parameters, and relocates itself and system from the low memory location where it was loaded, to a "safe" place: 0x90000-0x901FF (INITSEG), where the boot-block used to be. setup.S then uncompresses the compressed (zImage) kernel image at starting address 0x10000 or 64K, just beyond the firmware's data space (SYSSEG). It then moves the uncompressed kernel from address 0x10000 to address 0x1000 (4k, leaving one page of low memory free) switches from "real" x86 mode to emm386 mode, and loads the kernels' starting address into the CPU's Program Counter register (starts the kernel running).

One of the last things setup.S does is run the video setup and detection code, video.S. The shuffling of the kernel back and forth in memory is to overcome limitations of the PC BIOS memory addressability (640k), and free up several hundred kilobytes of system memory (the actual amount freed is reported by the system). The 4k is used for handling virtual memory. The special load instructions (trampoline) are required to 'cheat' the system, as the instructions load part of the kernel into memory locations beyond the 640k barrier that the (then currently running "real mode") system knows about. In the process of shuffling the kernel around, the memory originally written to by the BIOS, and also where the setup and system programs were loaded are overwritten by the kernel image, hence the need for moving them to a safe place, beyond where the uncompressed kernel image is loaded. The actual load is slightly more complicated on x86 systems as not all BIOSs report their memory on the same registers, report information in different ways, or map their memory/system resources in unconventional ways. Also, some BIOSs must be prodded for information several times or have A20 Gate problems.

Other computer architectures may not have the limitations of the Intel x86 processor, and so loading the Linux kernel is done in a much more straightforward manner.

title: The Linux Kernel/Booting


text:
Cookbook talk:Rice

Shouldn't TODO:s belong here? Evktalo 16:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Kellen T 18:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To do:

 * Pictures of different rice types, including brown and white rice.
 * Washing of rice
 * Water ratio to rice grain level
 * How long it takes for rice to cook
 * How long can cooked rice be stored before it must be thrown out
 * Rice used in cooking: plain, flavored, fried, dessert, snack, etc
 * Nutritional value of different rice types (inc brown and white)

title: Cookbook talk:Rice


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Introduction to Part Four

Before we begin we should clarify the distinction between a “meta-purpose” and the “universal purpose” we have been seeking to guide our collective morality.

Part Three, Purpose, sought evidence that the behaviour of the universe or life might be directed toward achieving some kind of purpose. It found none. It then suggested that (and proposed a reason why) life might continue evolving until it became an omnipotent being (but emphasized that there is no proof that this must occur).

Since the universe behaves rationally, life’s survival depends upon behaving rationally also. Sentient beings, able to plan ahead before acting, behave rationally when they pre-determine a purpose and make decisions that, when acted upon, help to achieve the chosen purpose. We might decide that “supporting life’s journey to become omnipotent” is a worthy goal, and we could make it our “meta-purpose” to guide moral decision making. However, this is too loose a statement for many practical purposes. While it might convey some emotional desires or feelings, it is not precise enough.

A statement intended to guide the moral (and therefore physical) behaviour of an entire civilization must be able to withstand all manner of challenges—legalistic, moralistic, religious, economic, and many more. “Helping life to become oB” will never survive a rational attack; a more robust definition of humanity’s goal is required. A clearly defined “universal purpose,” possibly based upon the desire to help life evolve to become oB, could turn wishful conjecture into practical precision. Moreover, if a “universal purpose” were to be derived from the concept of assisting life to become oB, then a potentially dry legal document might come to life—the vision empowering the definition.

How a universal purpose might be defined is touched upon in the ../Multi-year Targets/; it is difficult task but not one we need dwell upon. The question, “why bother to do anything?” is a much more important topic and must be addressed. Why should anyone go to the trouble of contemplating the precise wording of a universal purpose?

../Why Bother?/ suggests some philosophical reasons why the effort should be made while ../Possible Applications/ offers some practical ones. Hopefully one or more of the thoughts expressed in those chapters convince at least a few readers that the undertaking would be well worth while.

../Determining Moral Behaviours/ delves into the nitty gritty of a possible new morality. Assuming a universal purpose based upon the premise of oB was crafted, just what behaviours would it support, and what might it forbid? Superior minds will hopefully someday undertake the task of developing a rational morality, one that might better guide us in solving the extraordinarily complex issues we face today and will surely encounter tomorrow.

In eras past, religions took generations to develop, with emotions playing a large part. Nowadays a sound religion might be rationally grown in a decade or two, via electronic communications. This book's emphasis is upon the need to develop a universal religion, and where one might look, not upon actually doing so. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate to outline how such a fantasy might someday become a reality in ../A Universal Religion/.


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Why Bother?

This chapter attempts to answer some of the questions skeptics may raise. It suggests a few philosophical reasons why we should develop a universal purpose, why we should base it upon supporting the achievement of life’s possible endpoint, and why we should make this effort. Other, more practical, reasons for developing a universal purpose are presented in the next chapter.

 * 1) /Why Develop A Universal Purpose?/
 * 2) /Why Choose Life's Possible Endpoint?/
 * 3) /Why Do Anything?/
 * /Summary/


text:
Developing A Universal Religion/Why Bother?/Why Develop A Universal Purpose?

Purpose directs decision making. Even so, most of us start our careers and live our lives having no specific goal in mind. Perhaps as a consequence, many of us seem to actually like being told where we should be going and what we should be doing. We see this during election campaigns, and in the organizations we work for. We look for leaders with vision, people who can imagine possible futures, describe desirable ideals, then tell us how they might be achieved. We see it again in our religions: the current split between revision and tradition is all about direction. It is also pervasive in the advertisements that surround us; these wouldn’t be effective if we weren’t receptive to instruction and influence. Our willingness to accept direction in almost all walks of life suggests that many, if not most, may actually prefer to be told what to think, how to behave, and what to buy. Being told, I suppose, simplifies life.

If this is so, then perhaps the first reason why we should develop an overarching purpose is that the world today is arguably without united moral direction, and being in this position is disquieting. Religious dogmatists sense this void and are responding with an oft-surprising militancy. In that fundamentalism seeks to return us to the ways and notions of many centuries past, the possibility that a fundamentalist Protestant, Catholic, Islamist, or other extremist might generate enough support to globalize his or her religious views is rather alarming. Such an outcome would exclude the last thousand years’ of progress in all fields of knowledge, and spawn an oppressive future. The world is not what it used to be—it no longer naturally overflows with abundant resources, and a population of six billion can only be sustained using the products of modern technology.

There are additional good reasons to seek and select a guiding universal purpose. For instance, heads of governments and large multinational corporations make decisions that cross many boundaries, affect the lives of multitudes, and determine how vast resources are spent. In our current society, these decisions are usually made as though each was entirely unrelated to any kind of a broader picture. (Moreover, and this would be worse, the organization’s “bigger picture” could be completely at odds with the one that the majority of us would like to see.) If humanity’s goal for life is to be more than just wandering and squandering, exhausting the world’s resources toward trivial ends, perhaps even harming rather than helping our collective future, then we must find a way to speak with a united voice.

Another, quite different, reason for individuals to adopt a universal purpose is that following one can provide an extra degree of personal meaning, something above and beyond that which we may already possess.

Fully one-fifth of the population (and, very probably, many more, once acknowledging ones adherence to atheism or agnosticism becomes acceptable in general society) openly states that they do not believe in the existence of a god who involves himself in the affairs of humankind. These individuals, and I am one of them, make moral decisions without referring to the guiding purpose a religion provides. Rather, we support a variety of purposes (commonly those that would be called moral or ethical) instead of just one: helping people or animals, working to improve communities or the environment, contributing to charities, and so on. Following such purposes and personally behaving in a manner consistent with these goals provides meaning. But none of these purposes, individually, can bring as much meaning as would following a single, all-encompassing, universal purpose—particularly one accepted and supported by the majority.

However, perhaps the most compelling reason to develop a universal purpose is that, for the first time in history, we now have the knowledge and power to direct our future by genetically manipulating life. This must not be allowed to happen haphazardly, driven this way or that by commercial or quasi-religious immoderates and their organizations, as such interventions represent the desires of only small portions of humankind. All must be heard in matters of such importance, for we are about to recreate ourselves in our own image.

This new-found ability was mentioned earlier, when we noted that survival has meant adapting to changes in the environment. In effect, life’s future used to be (and much still is) externally determined. But our human future is about to become whatever we decide to make it, and we must proceed with great care. One mistake, and we may produce a virus a thousandfold worse than smallpox or HIV. We may introduce factors that migrate between species, or that mutate, then decimate entire biomes, and return life’s whole matrix to an ancestral form comprising little more than bacteria.

Our present and future actions in gene manipulation are fraught with danger, but they are also magnificently full of opportunities. We cannot ignore these technological and medical advances. We must learn fully the science of genetics, but we must also carefully control the use of what we learn. Only by everyone, at all levels of these endeavours, adopting, developing and maintaining a conscientious awareness of an appropriate humanity-guiding universal purpose, might this degree of control be achievable (a premise to be expanded upon in the next chapter).

The concerned rational among us must be the ones to take the initiative. We should adopt or define a judicious guiding purpose while we may, or in its absence someone will certainly come along and sell us theirs and it may become too late to make a rational choice. History provides us with many examples of this. Whenever we have found ourselves greatly dissatisfied, as a group or as a nation, someone offers leadership, then takes command. This is how Stalin, Hitler, Yeltsin, Milošević, and Bin Laden gained or consolidated their power, to name just a few examples from recent history.

Humanity needs, I think, a collective purpose. This would be in addition to our many individual and religious purposes. Under such a unified objective, individual moral behaviour not harmful to the collective good would properly remain individual choice, accruing concomitant rewards as believed to come before or after that individual’s death. However, the world’s collective guidance is a different matter. It should be obtained from a purpose positioned far beyond any one individual’s reach. This purpose should shine as a beacon to nations, guiding many generations. And its rewards should accrue to the living, not the dead, enriching the lives of all.

While no one should be expected to abandon their inherited or chosen religion, none should be prevented from adopting an additional universal purpose to guide their moral behaviour. No one should be asked to change what they have come to believe about themselves and their ultimate individual destiny, or to deny the god they worship. But an overarching universal purpose, used to guide humanity’s collective behaviour should also exist—something that clearly helps ensure our species’ and life’s well-being and continuance.

 * Return to Why Bother?, Introduction
 * ../Why Choose Life's Possible Endpoint?/


text:
User talk:JakobVoss

Hi Jakob ;)

title: User talk:JakobVoss


text:
Set Theory/Orderings

Definitions
Relations with certain properties that impose a notion of order on a set are known as order relations or simply orderings. For the following definitions, let R be a binary relation.

 * If R is reflexive and transitive, then it is known as a preorder.
 * If R is a preorder and also antisymmetric, then it is known as a partial order.
 * If R is a partial order and also total, then it is known as a total order or a linear order.

A set equipped with a preorder, partial order, or total order is known as a preordered set, partially ordered set (or poset), or totally ordered set (or linearly ordered set) respectively. An order relation is usually denoted by the symbol $$\le$$ and an ordered set is denoted by the ordered pair $$( S, \le )$$ where $$\le$$ is the order relation on S.

A totally ordered subset of a partially ordered set is known as a chain. For this reason, any totally ordered set may sometimes be referred to as a chain.

Two elements a and b in a preordered (and thus in a partially or totally ordered) set are called comparable if either $$a \le b$$ or $$b \le a$$. Note that while totality guarantees that every two elements in a totally ordered set are comparable, two elements in a pre or partially ordered set may not be so.

Bounds
Let $$(S, \le)$$ be a preordered set and let $$T$$ be a subset of $$S$$. If there exists an element $$u$$ in $$S$$ such that $$x \le u$$ for all $$x \in T$$, then $$u$$ is called an upper bound for $$T$$. Similarly, if there exists an element $$l$$ in $$S$$ such that $$l \le x$$ for all $$x \in T$$ then $$l$$ is a lower bound for $$T$$. If there exists an upper bound for a set then that set is said to be bounded above, or similarly if there is a lower bound then the set is bounded below.

Let $$(P, \le)$$ be a partially ordered set and let $$T$$ be a subset of $$P$$. If an element $$u \in P$$ is an upper bound for $$T$$ and if $$u \le z$$ whenever $$z$$ is an upper bound for $$T$$ then $$u$$ is called the least upper bound or supremum of $$T$$. Similarly, a lower bound of $$T$$ that is greater than or equal to every other lower bound for $$T$$ is the greatest lower bound or infimum of $$T$$. The following proposition states that we are justified in calling these elements the supremum or infimum rather than just a supremum or infimum. The proof is left to the reader.

Proposition: The supremum and infimum of a set are each unique.

Let $$(P, \le)$$ be a partially ordered set and $$T$$ be a subset of $$P$$. A maximal element of $$T$$ is any element $$m$$ such that if $$m \le a$$ then $$m = a$$ for all $$a \in T$$. If the inequality in the previous sentence is reversed, then the element is called a minimal element. If $$t \in T$$ is greater than every other element in $$T$$, then $$t$$ is the greatest element or maximum, and similarly if it is less than every other element it is the least element or minimum. Note that an element of a partially ordered set can be a maximal element while failing to be a maximum since not all elements of a partially ordered set may be comparable.

Equivalences
Another important type of relation is the equivalence relation. This is a relation R that is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive (or, simply a preorder that is also symmetric). When R is an equivalence relation, we usually denote it by $$\sim$$ or $$\equiv$$. A set equipped with an equivalence relation is also known as a setoid.

If $$\sim$$ is an equivalence relation on a set $$S$$, we define for an element $$s \in S$$ the equivalence class of $$s$$ as $$\{a \in S : a \sim s\}$$. This is usually denoted by $$[s]$$. The set of all equivalence classes of $$S$$ is known as the quotient set of $$S$$ by $$\sim$$, which we denote by $$S/\!\sim\ = \{[x] : x \in S\}$$.

A partition of a set $$S$$ is a family of sets $$\mathfrak{S}$$ such that $$\mathfrak{S}$$ is pairwise disjoint and $$\bigcup \mathfrak{S} = S$$. The proof of the following theorems about equivalence relations are left to the reader.

Theorem: If $$S$$ is a set and $$\sim$$ is an equivalence relation on $$S$$, then $$S/\!\sim$$ is a partition of $$S$$.

Theorem: Let $$S$$ be a set and $$P$$ a partition of $$S$$. Define a relation $$\star$$ such that for $$a, b \in S$$, $$a \star b$$ holds if and only if there exists a member of P which contains both $$a$$ and $$b$$. Then, $$\star$$ is an equivalence relation.

title: Set Theory/Orderings


text:
Strengths-Based Social Work Practice

Credits

What Is It?

 * Strengths-Based Practice assesses the inherent strengths of a person or family, then builds on them.

(Fort Wayne MSW class, December 2006. Class discussion.)
 * Strengths Based practice uses peoples' personal strengths to aid in recovery and empowerment.

 * It's really about reframing personal perception to find good even in the worst situation.

Why Use It?

 * It is an empowering alternative to traditional therapies which typically describe family functioning in terms of psychiatric diagnoses or deficits.

 * It avoids the use of stigmatizing language or terminology which families use on themselves and eventually identify with, accept, and feel helpless to change.

 * It is at odds with the "victim identity" -- epitomized in popular culture by the appearance of individuals on television or talk radio sharing intimate details of their problems—which is inherently self-defeating.
 * It fosters hope by focusing on what is or has been historically successful for the person, thereby exposing precedent successes as the groundwork for realistic expectations.

 * It inventories (often for the first time in the person's experience) the positive building blocks that already exist in his/her environment that can serve as the foundation for growth and change.
 * It reduces the power and authority barrier between the person and therapist by promoting the person to the level of expert in regards to what has worked, what does not work, and what might work in their situation.

 * It reduces the power and authority barrier between person and therapist by placing the therapist in the role of partner or guide.

 * Families are more invested in any process where they feel they are an integral part.

 * And lastly - it works.

Implications for Practice
Therapists (and other health professionals, like physicians) are often comfortable and confident in their role as expert. Effective strengths-based practice requires that we acknowledge that in the life of the people we work with, we are not yet significant. Ideally, in the long run, we will not have an ongoing significant role in their lives- we will empower them to be the experts. However, we can help by locating and integrating those who are significant into the helping process.

More importantly, we must change the way we perceive, and the way we speak. Stigmatizing labels and personal behavior descriptors must be avoided:

 * non-compliant
 * resistive
 * unwilling to change
 * unmotivated
 * poor insight
 * uncooperative
 * dysfunctional
 * oppositional
 * defiant
 * delinquent

Additionally, never refer to the person by his or her diagnosis. Describing someone as a "schizophrenic" is no different from referring to another person as "cancerous". A person is not their illness—a person is a person, with a physical or psychiatric problem.

Perception
Sometimes, the magnitude or volume of problems troubling an individual or family is overwhelming—to therapists and individuals alike. When your initial impression of another person's situation is "train wreck", how can you proceed in choosing areas for initial development, and defining realistic goals? For yourself, and for the people you are assisting, it is important to begin the process with a positive vision. Wherever there is a problem in the person/family, look for the inherent strengths that can be used as a starting point for further growth. Never practice strengths-based perception to the extreme of ignoring dangerous situations, but do focus on creating a valid inventory of positive characteristics that are the foundation of the work you will do together.

Examples:

Life Domain Guided Assessment
A useful and visually powerful assessment exercise involves the brainstorming and posting of client/family strengths on a wall, on a pyramid made of different facets (or life domains) of the person/family and their environment. The pyramid has several levels.

 * FAMILY VISION

 * ATTITUDES & VALUES, PREFERENCES, SKILLS & ABILITIES, ATTRIBUTES & FEATURES

 * Vocational, Educational, Legal, Financial, Social & Recreational and Logistical

 * Crisis & Safety, Home & A Place to Live, Family & Relationships, Spiritual & Cultural, Health & Medical, Mental Health

You may wish to make letter-sized signs—one with each of these domains listed—then laminate them and arrange them on a wall in your office or group therapy room. Arrange the signs in a roughly pyramid shape starting with the top domain (Family Vision): X

X  X   X   X

X  X   X   X   X

X  X   X   X   X   X

This process is a challenge to both individuals and therapists, a fact that clearly illustrates the pervasive influence of deficit-based assessment and labeling in how therapists perceive individuals, and how individuals perceive themselves.

Take heart—it gets easier with repeated use—and eventually it will be routine to generate fifty or one hundred positive aspects of a person or a family in their present environment.

Self Assessment
It is also useful to provide people or families with self-assessment tools, and for those who feel pressured or embarrassed by the Life Domain Assessment, this may be a better fit. In two or three pages, try to elicit background information and basic goals from your new client. Keep the wording simple.

The following sample questions might be given to the parent/guardian of a child with bipolar disorder, or another emotional handicap:

 * List the three most distressing problems you are having with your child/family.
 * What seems to help, even if doesn't solve the problem?
 * What things does your child enjoy doing?
 * What talents or skills does your child have?
 * List some positive things about your family.
 * What are your dreams and future plans for your child?
 * What does your family hope to achieve in the next month?
 * What does your family hope to achieve this year?
 * If you had all the money and support you needed, what would you change about your family's situation?
 * Apart from your immediate family, list by name the most important people in your child's life (examples: teachers, coaches, friends, neighbors, clergy, health professionals, etc.).
 * When are the best times for you, your family, and other important people to meet with us to plan and discuss as a team?

Exercises
List the strengths of these individuals and their family systems, speculating as appropriate.

Scenario 1: Phil
Phil is 16 years old, and the oldest of 4 children. He attends school regularly but doesn't do much homework, and does assignments at the last minute. His grades are B's and C's. Phil is very quiet but has half a dozen friends. He plays in a garage band with a few guys he knows from school. Phil rarely smiles. He has a weekend job, but often does not return home after getting off work. Usually, he goes straight over to the home of a friend who is two years older. There, he is allowed to drink as much beer and hard liquor as he wants. He gets very drunk each time and usually spends the night sleeping on the floor, or on the couch if it is available. He's driven home drunk once. Phil sometimes cries when he is drunk, saying he hates how his life is and wishes he were dead. He complains that his parents scream and fight too much, and it's easier to stay out of the house and avoid the chaos. Phil hopes to be an architect someday and takes drafting in school. Phil's problem basically stems from home whereby his parents fight most of the time, however despite that Phil still has visions and dreams. therefore, further interventions should focus on the strengths recognized from Phil and also provide family therapy to try and remedy the situation at home.

Scenario 2: Rachel
Rachel is 11 years old, but already has a reputation at school about her interest in boys, despite never having had a boyfriend (or at least one her own age). She is a good student. Her father is employed by the school and even the students are aware of a rumor that he is having an affair with another staff member. Rachel has a number of friends, but all except one are boys. She often invites people over, but never to her bedroom. Instead, she prefers to hang out in her brother Seth's bedroom (he is rarely home). The room is littered with erotic magazines, liquor containers, and smells like cigarettes and something else. Rachel says the 'other smell' is pot. Rachel's mother never comes down to see what she is up to, and rarely greets her friends, despite usually being home. Her father is often away, and it's difficult to know when he is at home because he gives the children a wide berth. Seth hosts drinking parties at the house regularly, where marijuana is smoked freely, and no-one has ever objected to Rachel inviting her own friends. Recently, one of her friends from school died in an accident. Rachel only remarked that is was a shame that he died a virgin.

title: Strengths-Based Social Work Practice