greg dahlen

Alumnus, academy of achievement


This conversation is closed.

What have you researched?

You can enjoy researching something, it can be tedious, or you might have other feelings. What have you researched? How did you do it? Did you enjoy it or not, and why?

Closing Statement from greg dahlen

well, I enjoyed hearing about people's different projects. The most useful abstractions I got from the conversation came from Fritzie Reisner, who clarified the difference between formal, academic research and informal home research, but also suggested they might not be so different; and Carolyn mcauley, who made me think about what is an experiment, and what experiments do I, and others, do in our personal lives.

  • thumb
    Jan 11 2014: Thanks Greg for the question:

    I'm interested in how humans can be so smart with science and technology yet be so dumb not seeing where it is leading us?
    How can we discover/invent all these poison chemicals, industrial processes and ways of killing one another without seeing the seeds of our own destruction inherently within them?
    How can we not adopt the 'precautionary principal' or understand how technology and automation have created structural unemployment?
    How do we remain in perpetual denial about the implications for today and future generations particularly in the face of climate change?
    How have we created an economic system that gives us the illusion of being insulated from the consequences of our collective actions?
    Is human extinction a forgone conclusion or can we evolve, adapt and modify our behavior in time?
    It would be funny if not so serious....
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: What is the precautionary principle?

      These are a lot of research topics, Craig. How are you tackling them?
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2014: Hello Craig. Your observations are directed right to the painful pont… education we miss in schools.

      I just want to comment. I believe we're never able to predict the potential negative consequences completely, the world does not exactely repeat itself. Werner Heisenberg wrote about how potentially dangerous the innovations and discoveries become when are taken out of the labs. When they are explored and massproduced by the brainless industries, or "controlled" by opinionated competing governments - our future is doomed.

      New ethics which would be able to embrace and redirect our mentality, drowned in our postmodern psychotic activities, are desperately needed. Thank you for sharing your thoughts :)
  • Jan 23 2014: I have researched a way to separate atoms in any liquid. I did it to gasoline first. I got a white vapor with twice the power of gasoline, and a non flammable liquid, neither of which would mix with the gasoline they were created from. I also did it to water and got a flammable gas, and we all know that had to be hydrogen. See my 3 videos on my You Tube channel Bill Kendrick, read the comments and see when I realized what I did. I originally wanted to run an automobile on gasoline vapor, and discovered I had separated the atoms in gasoline, then to prove it I did it to water. I call my process Flashing Liquid.
    • thumb
      Jan 25 2014: Well, I got to watch about one-and-a-half of the videos, Bill. How did you discover this phenomenon? Are there are practical applications?
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2014: I have researched life, and will continue to do so. Yes, I've enjoyed every minute of it....even the challenges....because at the end of the research/experience, there is learning and growth, which contributes to peace and contentment:>)
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2014: Colleen, I know you've provided me valuable links on quite a variety of subjects. I think I asked you before if there are any subjects you have dwelt on, where you've really stayed with them a long time and looked into them deeply? Have you ever had occasion to research something related to your gardening? How did you do it? If you have never researched something at length and deeply, is that by preference, I know I haven't got too many subjects that I've stuck with at length, I prefer to learn a little bit about this and a little bit about that.
      • thumb
        Jan 21 2014: Hi Greg!
        “Research comprises "creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications."[1] It is used to establish or confirm facts, reaffirm the results of previous work, solve new or existing problems, support theorems, or develop new theories”

        That being clarified, I have been researching gardening for 60+ years. Reading TONS of books, exploring, experimenting with various methods and practices, including methods for preserving foods and various uses of herbs for culinary, medicinal and therapeutic uses, making herb oils, salves, creams, herbal bath/shower scrubs, and herb vinegars. I’ve learned about how to dry, freeze and store produce for my own consumption in the winter months when the gardens are not producing. The most important part of research, for me, is application.

        When I started refinishing antique furniture for my own use, I read books, took classes, and learned how to strip and refinish various kinds of wood, do chair seating (cane, rush, splint, cord, etc.), and also learned how to upholster furniture. I studied various styles of antique furniture, and my research/knowledge led to a small antique business, thereby applying the information.

        When I started managing rental units that my husband and I owned, some of which were government subsidized elderly and disabled housing, I studied and researched the rules and regulations, and was required to attend management educational sessions periodically. I continued to apply the information, and learn more for the 25 years I managed the housing.

        When I physically participated in the restoration of 4 historic buildings, I studied structures, building practices of the time in which the structures were built, styles, etc.
        • thumb
          Jan 22 2014: Fantastic, Colleen. Now what would you say is the difference between what you did here, and what a professional researcher, say a laboratory scientist, does? Or is there any difference?
      • thumb
        Jan 21 2014: continued...
        When I volunteered at a women/children’s shelter, training sessions were required to be able to work with a vulnerable population. In addition to the required sessions, I read quite a few books about the topic and studied the psychology underlying violence and abuse. I lived with violence and abuse as a child, so it was not a new topic for me, and there are so many different dynamics to it, that one can probably study and research it for a lifetime, which I probably will be doing.

        When I volunteered with the dept. of corrections, there were training sessions, and because I have always been interested in human behavior, I studied and researched more about offenders, while actually working with them for about 6 years. I have quite a few friends who are psychologists, and sociology professors, so in depth conversations with them helped quite a bit. I was also trained through the dept. of corrections in the “Real Justice” model, which included training for mediation.

        When I traveled extensively, I read lots of books about the area I was traveling to, learned a few words of the language, studied and learned about the culture, history, traditions, socioeconomics, geography, etc.

        After a near fatal head/brain injury I researched NDE/OBEs, read hundreds of recorded cases, explored scientific research on the topic and researched, explored and practiced various religious and philosophical beliefs, to see if there was any connection. I also studied brain function, because the prognosis was that I would never function "normally" again. I wanted to find out what the heck that meant for me the rest of my life:>)

        This is only a small I said.....I explore and research life and will be doing that until I take the last breath:>)
        • thumb
          Jan 22 2014: Fantastic, Colleen. I really admire you for having so many interests. Do you think you "got good" at all these fields? Now you also had said before you "research life." But you would agree that life is vast and deep, no matter how much we research we will die with a million topics unresearched? So would it be more correct to say that you researched certain aspects of life? Or is there really some sense in which you "researched life"?
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2014: Thank you Greg,
        To answer your first question in your previous post.....I provided the accepted definition of "research", which I accept as well:>)

        I cannot imagine living a life without various interests and in depth exploration. You know one of my life philosophies is to learn, grow and evolve as an individual while contributing to the whole. So I am doing/living/being that to the best of my ability:>)

        I got to a level with my explorations/research where I learned and understood some things better, more in depth, and could apply them to the life adventure. What I discovered, is that one thing led to the the next....on and on. As a curious person, I simply followed the evolving explorations.

        Yes Greg...I agree that life can be "vast and deep", and I know that everything will not be explored by me before I die. My intent, is simply to live life as fully as possible while I'm here. I research life Greg, to the best of my ability in every moment:>)
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2014: When people say "research" in colloquial conversation, they typically mean made personal observations and looked stuff up. Using that definition, EVERYONE does this all the time. People look more closely into some things than others, some tending toward acquaintance with many areas and others toward depth in few. Even among those who inquire in depth, how well people really get to the bottom of a subject varies depending on how systematically they work and their insight.

        The research methods involved in scholarship include observing and looking up what others have said or written but very much do not end there. For example, there are scholarly standards of rigor of observation that distinguish those observations from a typical layperson's observation on the same subject.

        With the internet, everyone who looks something up in a search engine can think of himself as a researcher if he chooses. Someone who compares offerings and products at different hardware stores can consider that research as well.

        I think it is reasonable for anyone to interpret your question either in terms of all the kinds of stuff a person likes to look up or get involved in with a reflective mindset or which particular areas a person reads in in more depth.
        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: when scholars do research, do they typically bite off a larger topic than someone doing home research? I suppose another difference might be that a scholar researches with the intent of eventually sharing the discoveries, whereas someone researching products is only looking for their own benefit.
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2014: I don't think one can make these generalizations. Those doing "home research" are often interested in their own "theory of everything" and try to get to a position that satisfies them through informal means of looking and reading. Some scholars study something small with an interest in that small thing or with an eye to being able to extrapolate from that small study to something larger. There are biologists who study the worm c.elegans or another simple sea creature to study learning and memory more broadly, for example.

        While scholars research with an eye to sharing and pushing the boundaries of their field, people who are not scholars may well intend to share what they believe they have discovered. The arenas in which they share will be different. Or more accurately, scholars will share their work mostly among colleagues, though some, called "public intellectuals" or some of the TED speakers seek to reach an audience without background in their fields. We have participants here who study areas professionally that they share in professional settings but engage on more popular or widely accessible matters here. For example, there is a participant engaging this week who is a researcher in veterinary medicine, I believe, but is not here sharing his ideas about the medical challenges of animals and best practices in addressing those.
  • thumb
    Jan 11 2014: Slowly and carefully... and reading and studying a great deal.

    The precautionary principal says that we don't unleash or experiment with dangerous chemicals or technologies until we know the potential negative consequences....completely.

    Obviously we're not that smart....unfortunately..
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2014: what are you reading and studying? Where did you hear of the precautionary principle?
  • Jan 27 2014: You need to stop playing video games, and learn something.
  • thumb
    Jan 23 2014: ON WOMEN.
    Hello Carolyn and Liily. If I understand what you're saying, men have been creating hate, war and bloody cruelty throughout human history. Were female sisters wives, friends and companions supporting fighters on their side or they were just innocent victims?

    To say that from the beginning of our civilization women were too suppressed by men depriving them from important activities pushing them to play a second role behind men is a very Questionable concept. Even when scarcely knowledgeable in history we know quite many women with lots of power and enough fame to change the world as well as to give their feminine pals more possibilities in society.

    Well, Do we know any woman who is known as a great philosopher, outstanding composer, major inventor or painter on the same level as Heraclitus, Newton, J S Bach ?

    There are many more reasons why women did not reach this outstanding level, and these very many reasons are not at all rooted in how badly they have been treated by men!

    I have been born into our postmodern society as a very feminine, shy and quiet girl. Since I was a child I've had no doubt that the foundation for our civilization has been built by Great Men, and I have not ever stopped learning from them. (I'm not a masculine type Competing with men. I also know too well that being a pretty female species among average men often feels more like a curse than blessing!)

    What is my most important point? I also clearly see that our Culture and Wisdom established by great men gets ruined over and over again -- but NEVER by great sages!

    Our real evil is our own collective human stupidity, multiplied by endless arrogance and very poor ethics. Our hostility against each other, against an opposite sex, against knowledge that does not fit our mentality is the very source of our recycling madness. It is so easy to destroy great work, ignore precious knowledge, blame and punish others. It's not easy to learn wisdom
    • thumb
      Jan 24 2014: hey, vera, I am actually replying to your comment somewhere else, there you had replied at the third level, with the three marks to the left of the comment, when it is at the third level I cannot reply there. Anyway, you were saying why don't we grow fur? Well, we do have fur, we have some hair on most places of our body. But really, doesn't it seem that clothes are warmer than fur? And then, when you start wearing clothes, you are warm so you don't need hair on body, and maybe hair on body doesn't feel as nice as smooth skin, so we wear warmer clothes and hair just evolves away. As far as intuition goes, I don't think we could be 10 miles apart and arrange to meet at a restaurant in between for lunch with intuition, do you? But can you seriously think that animals are just as smart as us? Do you not think our lives are more comfortable than animals'? And it takes intelligence to make a more comfortable life?

      I did not get Carolyn and Lilly as blaming men. I thought carolyn was just saying men and women think and communicate differently and so misunderstand each other. Lilly seems to think everyone hates, both men and women?

      You said there was another conversation here, what is it, whether it's more moral to eat plants than animals? Maybe you should start that conversation?
      • thumb
        Jan 24 2014: Six, seven or more questions in one post? Oh Greg, I'm not That good! -
        I'm responding using numbers to make my post less confusing :)

        1. About furs/feathers and intuitive super abilities in animals compared with us, naturally less able but more playful animals, humans. I'll try to publish this topic. It's about Revising our abilities and intelligence - might be fun!

        2. Women agressively blaming men, or women+minorities are blaming white men… this is a no-go very messy over-emotional movement and it only ignites more inflammable hate. In my opinion only when men and thoughtful women, who can stay cool in responce to this aggressiveness, can help balance this crazy situation.

        If all women would be like Colleen Steen, having beautiful, graceful and wholsome soles and minds, our society would be much closer to heaven, no need to hate, argue and fight.

        You asked: "I did not get Carolyn and Lilly as blaming men. I thought carolyn was just saying men and women think and communicate differently and so misunderstand each other. Lilly seems to think everyone hates, both men and women?"

        I think both opinions are similar because they are very extreme. (By the way My very best friends are men, not women. Women I know are nice, but are not interested in what I'm interested, they do not understand me at all, but are very sure -they do.)

        My answer is in my post above - No one can understand anyone else perfectly, everyone is unique - it's the law of nature. Only if we all learn wisdom and peace we might save ourselves from creating perpetual fights.

        3. "You said there was another conversation here, what is it, whether it's more moral to eat plants than animals? Maybe you should start that conversation?"

        This question is tremendously provocative, it dives into the core of our morals and cultural / religious roots. I might try to publish this question as well, if they let me.

        Hope I've made some little sense here, ?

        Good talking to you.
        • thumb
          Jan 24 2014: yes, I've run a fun conversation called "What have you Learned from Animals?", it's closed now. But yours might be a little different.

          Well, I still didn't feel those women as particularly criticizing men, Vera. Anyway, I agree that people should try to look for the truth of each situation and not generalize.

          What would be your background for running a conversation on the morality of eating plants versus animals?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 23 2014: why do women prefer intents are not to be stated, but embedded and filed?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: You must come across some funny stories. What is the most common point that seems to keep popping up with both sexes?
    • thumb
      Jan 23 2014: wait, carolyn, if people consider our current position as not the best, that would make them want to experiment, wouldn't it, not avoid experimentation?
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2014: in general I probably don't experiment much, I just choose the course of action I think will be best and then follow it.
      That might make a great conversation you should host, carolyn, "How do you experiment in your life?"
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Lejan .

      • +1
      Jan 22 2014: My guess would be the active side you fall on this, your experiment, whereas I am not certain how to understand the underlying 'moral goodness' in it, as any form of nutrition in the animal kingdom results in the annihilation of another life-form. And as shifting our focus, or appetite, from fauna and flora to flora exclusively does not eliminate this inherent form of annihilation of life - 'moral goodness' in this context therefore becomes highly questionable.

      If choosing the least 'familiarity' to our species is a 'good enough' decision to claim 'good morals' or just the most practical and lowest common denominator to our conscience remains unsolved to me so far.

      Isn't just our pace of life, our high mobility and our lack of certain receptors the main reason which makes it so difficult to us to sense the natural cycles and behaviors of plants? Whenever I watch a time-lapse video of them, I realize, how much of my overall environment remains unnoticed to me - day in, day out.

      Certainly, watching plants in their daily business would be as entertaining to us as to watch paint to dry, yet being comparable hasty as we are, again, seems no 'good enough' reason to me to draw morally solid lines for a higher 'goodness'.

      Humans are 'eye' focused animals and it enables us to get closer to another being, emphatically, if we have this 'entrance' of another visual system towards another form of life. And even here the kind of eyes is important, which usually makes it so difficult to us to 'access' emotionally to almost all insects.

      Plants totally lack this connectivity points for us, yet as we can become aware about this, shouldn't we consider and weight this fact differently as we often seem to do?

      Veganism and vegetarianism are both fine with me, as well as omnivores, yet to construct, to claim or to award on either form any superior 'good morals' over another, to me, proves highly questionable.

      Only plants manage to thrive on 'death' matter we can not catch up with.
      • thumb
        Jan 22 2014: don't most people just think animals suffer more when they die than plants, that they have more intensity and articulation of emotion?
        • thumb
          Jan 22 2014: If the method of killing is chosen and done wisely, dieing is free of any suffering.

          Pain, which probably makes for the most part of our understanding of suffering, is mainly a feedback signal to change behavior to avoid damage or further damage within a situation to remain intact as a being. Why would this be any different in plants?

          Many plants produce toxic substances in reaction on and against insect attacks 'just in time', so it is likely, that some sort of 'suffer equivalent' underlays their bio-system too. Now, does the fact, that this our limitations in 'interpretation' of this other forms of suffering minder their existence?

          And even when we could interpret given signs of suffering correctly, for instance the death struggle of countless fish, slowly suffocating on industrial scale on industrial fishing fleets, 'we' often tend not to. I am pretty convinced, that fishing as we know it today would be different, if fish could scream. Yet isn't our species known for empathy and imagination? So why aren't we using it wisely and in respect of what we choose for our food?

          I am no biologist, yet I wouldn't be surprised to learn, that some plants would die slowly after being harvested, as their equivalent to our nervous system is likely to notice their state of being, as well as their 'interpretation' or 'experience' may well be less centralized than ours and therefore remains partly and detecting in the parts of the plants which we get off our supermarket counters.

          I don't think, that the instinct of self-preservation is reserved to the fauna only, as it wouldn't make sense to me in the broader context of life in general.

          There is a difference in 'thinking' and 'knowing' if and how another species suffers, especially, if another species is so far off our personal experience as well as our emotional access towards it.

          So would I keep boiling my potatoes if science revealed its inherent cruelty? Honestly, I don't know ...
      • thumb
        Jan 22 2014: well, Lejan ., even if it is free of suffering, we know that potentially it could be very painful in an animal, more obviously painful than in a plant. We also I think have the sense that animals have a richer life than plants, so more is lost when one dies.

        But what is your objection, Lejan .? You are okay with anything being killed as long as it is painless? Or do you have qualms about anything being killed at all? But if you don't eat anything you will kill yourself, so you will be killing something?
        • thumb

          Lejan .

          • +1
          Jan 23 2014: I accept the fact, that the continuation of my existence is based on the discontinuation of other existences. But besides my own species, I do not value or weight the life of other species, plants or animals any different, although I am aware that I do have certain 'tendencies' on them.

          In my day to day life, the only species I kill personally, pro-actively and on purpose are midges and my moral is fine with it. My moral would also be fine if I had to kill my own food for meat, as long as the purpose of this killing was strictly tight to my survival. Hunting 'sport' to me is out of question. I eat meat only once a week although I like its taste very much, but this way it stays special, covers my natural tendency and goes fine with my conscience.

          On the killing part I have to trust my butcher, that he really does his job as professional as he claims to do and I would stop buying from him if I would find out any different. Also of importance to me is, that the animal was grown local, biologically fed and held under species-appropriate conditions. This meat is a bit more expensive, yet worth it.

          I am not certain if I share this sense you talk about, that 'animals have a richer life than plants, so more is lost when one dies', as this is what we tend to assume, yet actually know little about it. I can not imagine that Kettle bred on industrial scale has any richness in its life at all.

          And what do we know about the life richness of a lettuce? I for my part know nothing about it.
        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: Yet here a question to you, Greg, completely off topic:

          I found an interesting song on youtube, called 'tip tapping' and I have absolutely no clue what 'tip tapping' means in English.

          All of my translation sources failed, as the whole phrase isn't existent and the translation of each word combined doesn't make sense in my language at all... at least for the combinations I chose ... :o)

          The only 'imagination' I have is to walk silently and only on the toes of the feed to avoid noise, but if this is correct or not, I don't know.

          Do you know what it means, and if so, could you please explain it to me?

          Here is the link to this song in case further context is needed:

          Thank you
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2014: did you say above you value your own species more than any other species, human or animal, Lejan .? Because if you do, surely you would then value animals more than plants for being more like humans than plants?

        Probably I can rely on manifest suffering. If a creature is more obviously suffering as best I can interpret, I am content to think that it really does suffer the most. I somewhat trust my emotions and an animal's suffering registers more highly with my emotions, or maybe intution. One thing about plants is that many plants you do not kill the entire creature when you harvest something to eat, for instance picking an orange from an orange tree. I always try to save the seeds when I eat an orange and plant them. But some plants you do kill, such as carrots? How do we harvest carrots humanely, to limit their suffering as much as possible?

        One diet idea I like that makes me feel moral is a Masai idea. The Masai say that if a man eats meat and drinks milk on the same day, the man is a glutton. I follow this idea quite rigorously, and I really like it. I think the idea is that we have cows quite dominated, most of their life is just giving to us. But still they deserve to have some life of their own. If you drink her milk in the morning and eat her body in the afternoon, it is like you are saying she has no life, everything she is is for you, if you are going to take her milk at least give her a day to live before you butcher her.

        Let us say you had a choice, Lejan .. You can eat something that tastes good, but was farmed a bit cruelly. Or you can eat something that tastes not so good, but was farmed more kindly. Which do you choose?

        Tip tapping could be "tiptoeing." Or maybe it means she was deliberately tapping the leaves with her foot, moving them around, rustling them? Or it could be an open phrase that lets the listener let their mind roam as to what she means?
        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: Yes, I did say above, that I value my own species more than any others and this for 'plants and animals' not 'humans or animals'.

          On my emotional level, your assumption is right that I have more of a tendency towards animals, because of the given similarities, yet this vanishes on my rational level, which only separates life from not alive matter.

          With your manifestation of suffering I totally agree with you by my emotional side, yet nevertheless, the fact that I am missing the right gateway to plants does not sufficiently validates the non-existence of an equally existent form of suffering to me.

          Not knowing, or not accessing a different form of pain would not change its existence, right?

          Your Masai example gets to the point behind my own considerations, by which in relation to food I am trying to regain a deeper form of respect, humbleness, appreciation and thankfulness which got lost to some degree on my way through our affluent society.

          By this and the choice you gave me, I clearly decide for the more kindly food, by which, if I was a believer in the current market mechanics, it would only take a view more consumers like me to form the bit cruel farm into a kind environment, so that one fine day I could finally and also have some better tasting food as alternative to my former diet.

          So no, I am not against killing animals and plants to have our food, yet we have to have respect for our food while we are farming it and when we are killing it. And would this change the cost of food? Most likely, but this only in this current and failing market system.

          On 'tip tapping' and on the possibility that she provoked the 'listener let their mind roam as to what she means', she then definitely succeeded with me! :o)

          But your given remarks gives me now a way better room in which to place a meaning, for which I like to thank you for! Appreciated!
        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: What you're saying here, Greg, Deserves a New Topic.

          The difference between humans and the rest of living forms commonly give us this questionable confidence that other kinds of creatures are not as intelligent or less sensitive than humans - and they do not understand our artifucial language, math, sciences, poetry, etc The freaking belief that animals are "having no souls" or simply "automata" is still circulating to this very day, since old Descares time.

          I'm just wondering, Why did not we develop some beautiful and durable fur, or feathers, to protect ourselves from the harsh weather, but in stead we produce tons of bizarre outfits;

          or why did not we develop our sense of intuition to communicate with each other in a long distance, like plants and other living creatures do, but prefer to pile up our places with endless technological toys? I'm actually "researching" these phenomenon on my own..
      • thumb
        Jan 24 2014: Lejan ., is it possible that our being aware of a consciousness in an animal means that the consciousness is stronger in the animal? Therefore I say it is less moral to kill an animal.

        But also, is it not enough to say that based on what I know, I bring everything to the experience of killing my food, my sensual awareness and experiences, my reading, my talking and thinking, and anything else I can bring, based on all that my best judgement is that killilng an animal is inflicting more suffering, therefore it is less moral to kill an animal?

        Life probably assumes different shapes, more ore less sophisticated, therefore more is lost with certain forms of life?

        Yes, and the Masai way is also a very practical, concrete practice where one makes a choice and a small sacrifice on behalf of the animal. Some days I wish I could drink milk and eat meat in the same day, but I sacrifice one or the other for the animal. It is good for me too as I stay slimmer.

        I think I would decide for the better tasting food as I grant humans the kingship of nature, but I love your point that we should improve the farm we can have both great taste and humaneness.

        Yes, maybe she invented the phrase and, to have fun with us, didn't tell us exactly what she meant. What does Beatles mean "I am the walrus"? "I am the eggplant."
        • thumb

          Lejan .

          • +1
          Jan 24 2014: Yes, Greg, it is possible that consciousness is stronger in animals than in plants, yet I don't think that our awareness is a fine enough measure to draw final conclusions on this.

          I assume you have watched cats or dogs stretching out after their sleep, have you? And if so, you may have noticed the similarities in our behavior, as we also tend to do this within our process of waking up and to get the system going. Now watching and experiencing this event with animals perfectly fits our attention time-frame, as those species are 'clocked' as we are, yet compared to the average movement speed within the flora, cats, dogs and we are quite speedy.

          So if our attention time-frame is to short for us to realize plant movements in clear detail, how would we be able to grand them comparable levels of consciousness if we don't even notice any possible similarities?

          I don't know if plants in a way stretch in the morning hours, but if they do, this knowledge would certainly make them more understandable to us, don't you think?

          So maybe our awareness of strength in consciousness in plants gets simply lost in our hastiness? And if so, would this to any degree minder its strength? Thats why time-lapse videos of plants are so fascinating to me, because it allows me to recognize processes I would otherwise never have noticed, even though I am surrounded by them.

          My moral allows to kill animals and plants for food, if it serves our very survival - and, to a decent degree, also our enjoyment and pleasure, which doesn't include sport hunting, but some food creations which are not necessary for survival alone, such as chocolate or ice-cream, etc. And even so this may sound pretty stringent and ridged, in fact, it isn't.

          Just don't waste food, respect animals and plants and food-wise, try to focus a bit more on the healthy side. Anything else then comes with it.

          Kingships to me all failed to realize the origins they arose from and none of man-made ones ever endured.
      • thumb
        Jan 24 2014: well, Lejan ., could we say that humans and animals have more creativity than plants? We know humans have invented all kinds of things to make their life better, and animals also, such as a beaver building a dam. Plants on the other hand don't change for millions of years? Something that is creative I think feels it death more poignantly than a non-creative, feeling more poignantly means suffering more?

        So on a rational level, it is okay with you cannibalism? Why not if all lives are equal?
        • thumb
          Jan 24 2014: Creativity is one of the main pillars of nature and it comes in different forms, which to me, are all equal in value and therefore no differentiator for our morals.

          Not having changed for millions of years can also mean, that for million of years, plants had no need to make their life any better? How sophisticated must this appear to a species, which is creating any other month a new cell-phone model to squeeze a little bit more life improvement out of it?

          And so far I haven't seen any beaver building a holiday dam at some extra quiet place just for their vacation ...

          Isn't a climbing plant also using 'tools' when it grows upward the side of my house, grabbing tight onto it? Its goal is to reach more sunlight to improve its quality of life and as it isn't stable enough to grow upward on its own, that high, its using external help, as which we consider tools.

          I think nature uses creativity only if she needs to and stays mainly conservative if things are doing fine.

          So why do we keep inventing all this stuff and are our lives really becoming better? As a silent observer of first world nations the sense for improvement seems to me to be on the decline. Maybe not objectively, but subjectively many people seem to have come to an hold on this, or falling even downwards.

          On my rational level, cannibalism is absolutely fine with me, yet certain conditions have to be met by it to also align to my beliefs in humanity and it is exclusively bound to emergencies.
      • thumb
        Jan 25 2014: yes, well, it looks to me, Lejan ., like we have done better than the plant because we can create a fire rather than just grow toward the sun. The fire we create gives us more pleasant warmth than just growing another micrometer toward the sun.

        Some stuff we come up with seems a little unnecessary, but a lot of the stuff seems really great and beautiful.

        What conditions of cannibalism have to be met to "align to (your) beliefs in humanity"?

        Lejan ., if you believe there is no moral goodness to vegetarianism, why only eat meat one day a week? I wish you will follow my precept on the day you eat meat, that on that day you will not drink milk or consume milk products like cheese.

        I am often surprised people don't eat the bodies of old humans after they die from natural causes. Maybe they are too sickly?
        • thumb
          Jan 25 2014: As much as I know, Greg, plants doesn't strive towards the sun for its warmth, as for the photon energy which they need and use for their photosynthesis. Any temperature above freezing point, does not seem to effect this species as much as ours, so for them there is no need for fire at all (besides some specialized seeds which use fire as a germination initiator).

          Certainly we have beautiful and highly useful inventions, yet we also used our creativity for the most horrible ones, which in terms of moral superiority this our ability has eliminate itself by itself already.

          If in case of an emergency situation cannibalism was the only way to survive for a group of people, decisions had o be made whom to kill, in case no corpses were already available to feed from. Humanity then lays in the process how this decisions is formed, agreed upon and executed. And as this is strictly situational, I can not give you any concrete conditions on that.

          I eat meat only once a week mainly because animal fat is less healthy to my system than vegetable fat.

          And as much as I like and respect your precept, it wouldn't resonate with my own logic and therefore not have any effect on me, because I see cows as individuals and not as a single species in the context of food. So by killing one individual cow for meet I don't see any reason why I should not drink milk from another.

          I am not surprised that people don't eat one another after live ends in some of them. It is a form of respect in many cultures.
      • thumb
        Jan 25 2014: well, I imagine plants are cold at night, and would prefer to be indoors in a heated house. Although I admit they are different than us, I still think how I would feel being naked outdoors at night, and I know it would be extremely uncomfortable.

        True, the cows are individuals, but if you have two cows they are both your slaves, but deserve to be treated as though they have some life of their own, not as though the only thing they exist for is how they can give up everything to you. To take meat from one of your cows and milk from the other on the same day is craven. And some people would go farther, milk their cow in the morning and kill her in the evening, also craven.

        What is respect? It's a dead body, it has no idea or feeling about you eating it. But maybe the flesh is diseased, however you can cut around it.

        Some invention with potentially horrible uses, but no so much horror so far. Think about all the billions of people who have lived out their natural life, well-fed, warmly clothed, comfortably sheltered. An old song on Broadway, "You have to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative"?
        • thumb
          Jan 25 2014: Yes, it is so difficult to us to feel outside our realm of experiences, isn't it?

          As for the cows, my logic aligns with the one I milk in the morning to drink and kill in the evening to eat from it. Perfectly consistent on which I could agree on. Illogical remains to me why it would be craven to eat from one and drink from another, as from both individuals I would have demanded 'only' one enslaving service. And the moment I relate to the cows as slaves collectively, I would completely deny their individuality, which then collides with the honorable goal to leave them some life of their own, because 'own' demands individuality.

          As for the respect towards humans, my morals also includes their physical representation, alive or dead.

          Would you cut around questionable quality to feed from one of your species if appropriate alternatives were available to you but, lets say, not as tasty?

          But how will you ever eliminate inventions? Once out, one may try to hinder them by prohibition, sanctions or by executing some, lets say, foreign nuclear scientists ...yet making a negative invention disappear?

          So far and throughout history, those negative inventions got even more and more sophisticated, so it seems they are actually what we really accentuate on as a species?

          Broadway may hum a different tune on that, but what does our reality sing?
      • thumb
        Jan 25 2014: I don't think it is, Lejan .. The evidence is that animals are cold at night, if they can insinuate themselves within human shelter they will do do, therefore I reason plants are cold as well.

        As for the cows, uh, well, these are their only two uses to you, milk and meat, and they don't particularly want to provide either one. If you take both in one day, you are exceptionally greedy?
        • thumb
          Jan 25 2014: If that was true what you say, it would make for long, long lines of 'wanna be friends' penguins at any of our national antarctic polar stations, don't you think?

          Animals are usually equipped with sufficient enough isolation or instinct to find and/or build it to withstand the climate they grew into. And only rapid climate changes would be able to undermine it.

          Also plants are no warm-blooded species, which makes me think, that their experience towards temperature had no reason to develop similar to ours, and I doubt it has.

          In all my lifetime I spent in nature I have never seen a single frozen, wild animal. And although I think, that animals may well experience uncomfortable cold nights, I don't think this is the norm. They aren't stupid, so if one shelter didn't proof sufficient enough at dropping temperatures, they either find or build sufficient ones until their need for comfort is matched.

          I don't see why I was exceptionally greedy to my enslaved cows if I would demand from each of them one service a day from which I already know, none of which they would provide to me freely. Because if they would, there was no reason to enslave them in the first place.

          And as all of my cows would eat and drink at the same day, every day, why wouldn't I allow myself to do the same? Because I could drink water instead? Certainly, but so I could eat grass. Not that my metabolism could use much of the grass for me to live on, but for any other day in between I feed from my cows, it would fill my stomach just fine, right?

          Thats the break in logic for me, Greg. But I appreciate very much the idea behind this habit, regardless the flaws I see in it. Just some minor adjustments and I could go with it if I owned cows myself.
      • thumb
        Jan 26 2014: well, Lejan ., possibly penguins are too afraid of man to line up at arctic station? One evidence that animals sleep cold is that their lifespans are shorter than ours?

        As evidence that we are most creative species, Lejan ., could we look at our mastery over all other animals and all plants? Do you agree that we have more power over plants and animals than they do over us?

        You can eat and drink the same day, I say just don't eat meat and drink milk the same day. In the past, when I was eating meat, on the day I eat meat I drink orange juice, or water, or pineapple juice. But just not milk. It is gross, it is like you say you will take anything from the cow, or the herd, any time, the cow or the herd has no meaning in this world except what she or he or they can provide for you.
        • thumb
          Jan 27 2014: Animals which historically have been not or little exposed to humans usually show none to little fright towards us, which, like on the Galapagos islands, I would expect for other remote places as well.

          During periods of drought, in Africa for example, we can observe that herbivorous animals have no other choice but to overcome their fear in need for water to share the view remaining resources of surface water with their predators in plain sight, which, of cause need water too, yet stay lingering there for obvious reasons as well.

          Combining the two and following your train of thought, would make me expect for lots and lots of friendly penguins, especially as polar human scientists don't feed on them and as much as I know, never have.

          Lifespan is mainly determined by the given limitation of cell-division as part of the biological renewal process from within and the 'speed' of metabolism of a species when food and safety was sufficient and constantly provided.

          Water turtles may serve as a good example here, whose lifespan can easily exceed more than 120 years up to 160 years, although the water temperature they life in would make humans not only shiver but also die of hypothermia.

          'Power over' is an irrelevant concept in interdependent ecosystems. Take away all oxygen producing plants from this planet and the clock was ticking for all humans to go extinct by suffocating. Take away all pollinating insects, we go extinct as well. So who is dominating whom in intertwining dependencies?

          Some even say, that removing our species from the system would not have any negative effect on the system at all... on the contrary, which in terms of added value to the system, the ice we stand on may well be thinner than we think it to be ...

          On grossness, milk and cows I agree with you on individual view.
      • thumb
        Jan 27 2014: I don't know for sure, but is that really a universal rule, Lejan ., that animals that haven't been exposed to us show no fright? I'm thinking some animals would be afraid of anything unfamiliar? I would think animals do unusual things when they are desperate, perhaps the penguins aren't desperate?

        Turtles one does hear live exceptionally long. They are a rather exceptional animal, people say they "carry their house on their back"?

        Why is "power over" an irrelevant concept because of interdependency? Although in general we may need different species, in individual situations we dominate them, I maintain this comes from our greater intelligence and creativity.

        I am going to investigate more to see if animals sleep cold at night in the outdoors. But we may ask, Lejan ., if you believe in evolution and that we were once animals, why did we strive to move towards clothing, houses, and fires if we were already comfortable?
        • thumb
          Jan 27 2014: I think cats isn't the only species capable to kill itself by curiosity. And although I assume, that curiosity is wider spread amongst predators than it is with others, I also assume, that flight instinct is not exclusively based on inherent passed on experience.

          Fleeing takes energy so it wouldn't make sense for a species to run off anything which moves while ignoring to build a learning curve in doing so.

          In wildlife we can observe mixed herds of plant eaters grazing on same grounds, respecting yet not shying one another, which in terms of energy preservation and consumption makes perfect sense to me.

          So when a 'new kid' appears on the block it makes sense to get to know it, as on the long run a detailed evaluation makes for a higher survivability as well as for a better energy balance, which for each species is of importance.

          So yes, I assume, that what we observe on the Galapagos is not a local phenomenon of this island, as it would be difficult to assign any logic to it.

          Desperation on the other hand and in this context would be a reaction on the manifestation of unfulfilled needs which are necessary to maintain an intact existence, strong enough to trigger a change in instinctive behavior to increase the chance to gain whats needed while taking (and 'accepting') the risks in doing so.

          And as it is to expect, that nature equipped each of its species with all senses necessary to detect its 'state of being' in relation to the state it needs to be in to successfully survive, desperation was to expect only at extreme deviations between the two whereas slight changes in behavior or strategy would make for the norm of minor adaptations.

          Thus, if an animal freezes at night, it seeks or builds for better shelter, if its naturally given 'isolation and thermal management' is not capable to get it within its zone of comfort, which in fact is nothing but the felt representation of the state of being a species needs to be in to successfully survive.
        • thumb
          Jan 27 2014: Regarding turtles and temperatures, we should not confuse our imagination of the cosiness and warmth of a 'house' as we use to build with its body armor, because turtles do not use external heat source as we do in our 'homes', thus, their experience of and need for temperature has to differ from ours significantly.

          On 'power over' you now changed from a first generalized concept towards a situational one since interdependency got introduced and you also separated humans from animals, about which I assume you followed the general tendency of our species to see itself as something 'special' on this planet.

          But if 'power over' is now situational, how do you derive towards a generalized conclusion?

          Facing a hungry grizzly in the woods with a fully loaded AK47 in our hands may well turn out in our favor in terms of 'power over', but as we are situational now, how do we do in one in which the gun turned into just a twig.

          How do we do with Anthrax if an infection took place in the middle of nowhere and without easy access to transportation?

          And AIDS? Didn't we so far 'just' prolonged but keep being defeated at the end? And does this makes this virus the ultimate power on this planet?

          Intelligence and creativity are certainly highly developed within our species, yet nevertheless both remain only chosen when used as differentiating criterion in between species and if so, remarkably clearly in our favor and our favor alone ... And I wonder why ... :o)
      • thumb
        Jan 27 2014: well, what were you referring to when you mentioned an "arctic station"? Because if it is a closed building, I doubt that penguins could get in even if they wanted to, after all human locks, doors, and walls are pretty strong.

        By desperation I was thinking that animals could be uncomfortable but it would take extreme discomfort for them to try to break into human shelter.

        I tend to think that animals are uncomfortable but don't think of building a shelter. It is something I will have to research further. I was talking to a public librarian today and he said it is something to be researched at a university library. But still we may ask if our own species was once an animal and we were comfortable, why did we struggle toward having clothing, houses, fireplaces, and so on, when no other species did?
        • thumb
          Jan 27 2014: I imagine arctic stations to be extraordinary well sealed and locked, yet also some scientists to have some daily business outside it, which would make for perfect situations for penguins to get in touch in hope to finally get in as well. Because if I would imagine myself in their situation, as you did with the plants in your garden, damn I would go for any chance and my best inter-species skills... because as you said, breaking in was probably no promising option.

          Although I share large parts of the Darwinian theory, it does not completely satisfy my 'sense' about evolution. Yet as this my sense is an intuitive feeling, I have no clear evidence for its real existence.

          Different from the current teachings, it appears to me, that randomness is not the only mechanism to trigger mutation, as it lacks any feedback in which life could manipulate itself in terms of necessities for adaptation, which for a complex system as such, I would expect to exist. But as I said, thats my sense, no valid science.

          Now the question you rose is a good one. Did we trade the necessity for most of our former fur by the mastery of fire?

          I don't know, but this is highly questionable to my personal logic for this to be the cause and this for the two following reasons.

          That warmth by fire was to overcome an existing gap in between 'insufficient' natural isolation and average environmental temperatures, which existence you propose, wouldn't make sense to me, because loosing existent fur due to the given heat density of fire was a local phenomenon only, and even though the fire place probably became the center of a herd, or tribe, the exposure time towards the fire in comparison to the necessity to be away from it, would in my view not a strong enough condition to loose the advantage of fur in open fields to be protected against the cold out there.

          So could it have been a matter of 'attraction' that randomly (mutated) less furrier individuals were more desired as sexual partners by others?
        • thumb
          Jan 27 2014: But also this wouldn't make much sense to me, as usually body size is interpreted in nature as an indicator for a strong and healthy individual within a species, and whoever has made the experiment to wash a fluffy cat or dog in a bathtub had the chance to notice, that their former volume, which is one form of size, shrinks to a surprisingly small fraction of it.

          So by loosing body fur we would have lost a possibly dominating indicator for 'strength' and 'health' for our choice of partner, which in my view would not make for those genes of the less fury ones to become dominant.

          So could it be a matter and therefore first indicator of human 'aesthetics'?

          We know today, that each century we have sufficient information about, had its very 'ideal' of attractiveness of genders, which seems to vary over time.

          This concept of attractiveness so far was the only logical explanation for me for our species to loose most of its fur, as 'attractiveness' by being less fury has by no means any connection towards practical purpose and advantage within a cold and hostile environment. The invention of 'high heels' and 'depilation wax' thousands of years later and loved as hated by many of our females today may serve as an illustrated example here ... :o)

          The most irritating field observations I made for my species was in the Ural mountains in winter, watching Russian females walking the streets at -30°C wearing high-heels and mini-skirt and little more above their belts which looked warm at all ... ;o)
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2014: well, I see on the net that penguins are sometimes hunted, for one thing they are hunted sometimes for their fur. So they might have reason to fear man and thus not seek human shelter despite being cold?

        It seems possible to me, Lejan ., that the animals that were able to become our pets were able to make themselves useful to us somehow. For instance, dogs can herd sheep. Cats can catch mice. Perhaps so far we have insufficient use for penguins? But what could be a use fo penguins where we might want to make them our pet?

        It is true that a certain number of animals are anomalous and live longer than us. I don't know yet what to do with these animals. But the majority are more short-lived therefore I tend to believe that they are always colder and less comfortable than we are, and that being colder shortens their potential lifespan. I will continue to investigate this topic, but I am having trouble finding info on the net. I am at the library of my local community college today (Glendale Community College). I believe I will request assistance from the librarian to see if I can find an answer. I also have the option of attempting to find a biology professor who is holding office hours to pose my query. (They will help residents of the city who are not students, as I am not.) Now what is your story, Lejan ., did you go to college or university? What city do you live in?

        I would further reason that we are more creative than other animals because other animals love our food. Have you ever eaten the kind of food that a wild bird eats, such as leaves and worms? I have done it, and it is not as pleasant as our food. I remember being on safari in Africa and eating outdoors and the wild monkeys would approach us with menacing gestures, trying to blackmail us into giving them some of our food.

        I further reason that we have a higher quality of life than plants.......
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2014: If hunting penguins for fur is what our species did, then its a matter of desperation of the penguins do decide to share shelter with their predators as antelopes do at the watering hole with theirs. And if we do not observe such behavior, as I assume, the coldness of their environment does not seem to drive them into desperation as we had to expect if we'd follow and agree on your imaginative 'garden experiment' in which you gathered conclusions how cold plants must feel at night, being naked.

          Any warm blooded species has to constantly maintain a certain narrow range in body temperature, as otherwise and at constant deviation, the system damages. And as environmental conditions change over the year by its seasons, we observe in many species adaptive changes of their 'insulation', behavior or even their complete metabolism.

          Hibernation, thickening in fur, feathers and fat-layers or digging for deeper shelter is natures way to increase the chances of survival under dropping temperatures and each species developed its specific strategy to cope with it.

          Our experience of 'comfort' in terms of temperature is related to our given 'core temperature' which has to be maintained. If its getting to cold, blood circulation focuses on vital organs whereas 'secondary' body-parts get neglected. If its to hot, we start sweating to use the cooling effect of evaporation.

          Without any technical support and cloth, the spread of our species was pretty limited on this planet today, as by evolution we seem to have lost much of our former adaptation abilities to keep a constant body temperature under harsher environment conditions.

          Natures heating devices are muscles which we instinctively activate if we are to cold and try to avoid to activate when we are to hot. Shivering in the cold is nothing but to heat up our body temperature by the activation of our muscles, which is controlled on subconscious levels in our brains.
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2014: Now temperature wise, it is possible to imagine that there was a slight mismatch in between the necessity of a constant body temperature and the experience level of comfort, which could make a species constantly feel a bit 'to cold' or 'to hot' and this without any physical reason. Yet this could only be on conscious levels, as otherwise the body would automatically and subconsciously start to actively change the core temperature and as this temperature already was correct, active heating or cooling would then begin to damage the system itself of which we know, that this is not going to happen if the system itself is healthy.

          The question now is, how much 'subjective' discomfort is possible and how miserable would an individual, a species feel by it. As I expect nature to have perfectly matched the level of necessity and the feeling of comfort within the thermal management of each warm blooded species, I can only speculate about a mismatch in between both.

          Technically, this sort of control circuit would be highly flawed, as the temperature sensors would constantly deliver false informations to the systems, which in return would constantly adjust false temperatures for the system itself. Even if this sensor feedback was 'subjective' it would certainly spark the impulse of an individual to act 'accordingly', although there was no physical reason for it. This in return would activate subconscious mechanisms to out-balance this false behavior, which, depending on the magnitude of mismatch, could result in constant stress levels of the whole system by which it is to expect, that the lifespan of an individual or species was significantly reduced, which, again depending on its magnitude, could contradict the intention of life to at least live long enough to produce descendants for the continuation of the species.

          By this and Darwin's theory it is to expect, that a species suffering from such a mismatch in thermal management would not successfully make it.
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2014: It seems you compare the lifespan of species in years only, while ignoring their average body size, body temperature and rate of metabolism, about which science seem to have already identified specific dependencies.

          A mouse may live shorter in years than you do, but how does it looks if we would compare the number of heartbeats both of you have during lifetime instead? I don't know the answer, but as I used to have a pet mouse as a child, I know their hart beat frequency is way higher than ours. You may have heard about 'dog years', if this is the correct English term for what I mean, but we already have some 'rule of thumb' measures for some of our pet animals how their 'years' compare to ours. And although I assume, that this comparison isn't scientifically very accurate, I am certain that science has more precise units than years to compare the average 'durability' of species to one another.

          On pets I assume, that todays purpose for most humans to have them is company, rather than any other 'functionality' they may bring.

          Personally I am not particular keen on the fact that my cat tries to contribute every now and then her ideas about good food to our diet, but as this is hers I leave it this way and have to accept it.

          As humans are apes, I am not surprised by your experiences in Africa. But I know that my cat despises most of my cuisine because of its spices and prefers her meat raw, which most of us wouldn't. And as I expect the same for birds, I leave the worms to them as long as I have more delicious alternatives for my taste.

          As for my story, I attended a technical college and graduated in mechanical engineering in aerospace technology.
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2014: because we have a greater ability to communicate than plants. Plants can communicate by touch, and we can communicate by touch, also. But we, and other animals, can communicate by sound also, which plants cannot do?

        Very interesting story about the Russian women. But one of our human advantages is that if we are cold, we can put on pants, or stay indoors. We can wear a miniskirt one day and several full layers of clothing the next as we choose. Animals, I'm guessing are not as smart as us, and hence have not developed these options. Plants the same, well, that's another advantage of humans over plants, we can remain as still as a plant if we choose, but we can also move and do things to make ourselves more comfortable.

        As far as the AIDS virus being stronger than us: well, I don't know if an invidividual AIDS virus is as long-lived as us. I would imagine that the average AIDS bacterium lives a much shorter life than the average human, so in general I would say we are stronger. It is possible that the individual who gets AIDS has taken too many risks and made themselves too vulnerable. But even when AIDS overwhelms an individual, I'm thinking it may take millions or billions of bacteria to overwhelm one human, hence one human may be stronger than any one bacterium. Not sure on this one, do you know? Could one AIDS bacterium kill one human?
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2014: I am not certain if we possess all sensors necessary to experience plant-communication in its whole, but I do know that my abilities to decode olfactory messages within the flora is quite limited.

          You tend to focus very much on the sensory equipment you have, Greg, and to neglect those you haven't. When you watch bats hunting insects at dawn you probably don't hear much of them, but in fact they are constantly 'screaming' to navigate. Would your conclusion be, that bats are quiet hunters?

          If it is smart to choose 'attractiveness' over 'comfort' is highly questionable to me and it would be interesting to know how many accidents and serious colds are caused by wearing high-heels and mini-skirts in severe winter conditions year in year out and what it cost to the overall health-system in Russia. :o)

          The immobility of plants does not seem to have created a huge disadvantage for them, as otherwise they would not be around anymore in large numbers.

          As for AIDS, science still is in dispute if viruses can be defined as a life-form or not, yet it is certain about this on bacteria. And as a virus existence is entirely bound to its host, as individual and 'species', it is questionable if the question who 'lives longer' is valid, especially as they are although lethal.

          One HIV virus is definitely enough to infect a human and as its 'purpose' is to reproduce within the cells of its host organism, it will duplicate in large numbers, which causes AIDS to form, which finally defeats the human immune system to give way for another disease to do the final killing.

          What makes it difficult to humans to not make themselves vulnerable towards this virus is, that its path of infection highly relates to our sexual instincts, of which we know that those have a high damping effect on human ratio.
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2014: well, when I said penguins were cold at night, Lejan ., I meant that they were uncomfortable, but not so uncomfortable that they are desperate. But even if they were desperate they might not be able to overcome their fear of man to approach him. Or they might not understand that man has warmth to offer. We see wounded animals who could be helped by our animal doctors, and yet the wounded animal will try to get away from humans?

        I started researching this topic. Human beings optimum temperature 98.7 degrees F. Then I saw on the net mountain gorilla optimum temperature 62-64 degrees F. Can that be correct? Unfortunately, I am signing off, Lejan ., as I need to go to the bathroom and cannot leave the public computer safely while still signed on.

        But you know, it is a good question. If we think of ourselves as evolving from one-celled animals, one would wonder why the one-celled animal would even come into existence if its existence was in a form where it was always uncomfortable? On the other hand, maybe that is the best most life-forms can do, they have managed to come into existence and maintain existence despite being uncomfortable. Part of the problem is variations in temperature throughout the day and season. It is easier for humans to adapt to these changes because they can put on or take off clothes, blankets, and so on in order to cope.

        Cats are very picky eaters. But even they would rather have certain human food I think than anything they can catch in the wild?

        Bats may make sounds that we cannot hear, yet we have devised a way to hear them. But we have lived with plants for millions of years, we have worked with them, touched them, lay amongst them. Surely our perception of their communication abilities is worth something? Most people would agree that they cannot communicate as well as people?
      • thumb
        Jan 29 2014: sorry, Lejan ., I went to those and they wouldn't load. Here is one I'm aware of "The Secret Life of Plants" is the title. I like it because it features a soundtrack by Stevie Wonder, and in fact he won a Grammy for best album for the soundtrack.

        You know, it seems to me that plants are more sophisticated than they appear. And we may keep discovering more levels of sophistication. But human beings have been living amongst plants for millions of years, we have walked past them, grown them, lay down in them, cut them, eaten them. And human beings have great awareness, in fact we had a great awareness even before we had sophisticated scientific measuring machines. If in our awareness most people would say plants are not as sophisticated as human beings, you would not accept this?
        • thumb
          Jan 29 2014: Given the sensitivity level of plant responses and experiences we are talking about, the sensitivity level of technology available to the science at a time, does matter in my view to its possible results. And as I actually felt highly disturbed by the music, I stopped watching quite released when I realized, that the documentary was made in 1979.

          How could I possibly accept such a generalized statement? Plants are not as sophisticated as human beings in ... what exactly? Cracking CO2 in photosynthesis or parking a car in between two others? What are your criteria to chose and compare those levels of sophistications with one another and why?
      • thumb
        Jan 30 2014: well, one idea that comes to mind, Lejan ., is that we eat better than a plant eats. Think of our delicious food, and gourmet food, such as beef, raw milk, cream, truffles, escargot, caviar. Or even a piece of fish and a salad. Compare it to what a plant eats, won't you agree we eat better? But even an animal eats better than a plant? What does a plant eat, water only, it's not that good? Therefore when an animal dies, it feels its death with more poignancy than a plant as it gives up more in terms of pleasant food?
        • thumb
          Jan 30 2014: Taste is only a mechanism to animals to choose high energetic food over low energy food and to reject poisonous one. If water was the only 'food' plants ate as you proposed, what would be beneficial to them to possess this form of 'choice mechanism'?
      • thumb
        Jan 30 2014: What is your evidence that taste is only a mechanism to choose energizing food versus non-energizing? Many animals have their favorite foods, although they will eat others.

        What else does a plant eat besides water (and sunlight and air)?

        Lejan ., if there's some question in your mind that plants life might be as sophisticated as ours, maybe you should run an experiment where you try to live as much like a plant as possible? You could try to move as little as possible while awake every day, or move extremely slowly. And you could only live on water and sun? But maybe you will find that our human life is richer than that life?

        But I think in the strictest sense you are right. We really can't know with certainty that a plant doesn't mourn its death as much as we mourn ours. But would it be enough to go on probability, could we say that it's probably more moral to kill a plant than to kill a human being?
        • thumb

          Lejan .

          • +1
          Jan 30 2014: Obesity would not occur as it does if 'taste' and 'energy content' were not related. Sugar and fat, both highly dense in energy, are usually especially tasty to many species and this for the mentioned reason.

          A plants menu you can find here:

          As for sophistication, it appears to me, that you wish for an absolute answer which species, which life-form is 'the best' on this planet, and this probably to grand and define different values of life to rank them accordingly to abilities you choose.

          The question to me is, why? What is this good for? And why does humans come always on top in those sort of rankings? Maybe, because we choose the criteria in our favor?

          The usual ranking in our value goes roughly like this:

          Viruses - bacteria - plants - insects - reptiles - mammals - humans

          But this is only the value 'we' granted and its order therefore defined, not absolute.

          Humans also 'defined' those levels of value even within their own species and we both now, that this caused a lot of slaughter among us.

          Nazi Germany defined Jews as 'Untermenschen', as humans of lower value than their own kin and behind this declassification was a whole list of chosen criteria and believes for its justification. Unreflected, it made sense to so many Germans at that time and caused a holocaust and genocide of historical proportion.

          Slavery is based on similar evaluations on freely chosen criteria, by which one 'race' devalues another in their very interest. Color of skin, religion, 'technology levels', whatever criteria deemed best at its time.

          And do you think this evaluation, this 'ranking' within our own species is valid?
          And if not, why should trans-species evaluation have any more validity at all?

          We usually remind each other not to compare oranges with apples, and in this we usually tend to sense why we shouldn't.

          Why this logical concept doesn't seem to work within and across species stays mysterious to me since.
      • thumb
        Jan 31 2014: thanks for the plant nutrition link, Lejan .. I wonder in what form plants take up nutrients, I guess the nutrients must always be diffused in water for the plant roots to suck them up? (I apologize, I should look it up myself but I'm on a library computer where I have a set limited amount of time.)

        My first thought is that we want to rank ourselves versus other species so we won't feel too bad about enslaving them, or harvesting them. This seems kind of reasonable, I myself want to eat food from animals and plants, but I also don't want to feel too bad emotionally about it?
        • thumb
          Jan 31 2014: Water is natures favorite solvent, so it is to expect it plays a major part for nutrients to cross plant cell-membranes to enter the system.

          To me, humans is the most cruel species on this planet and this because they are capable to calm their conscience by believes or successful suppression of better knowledge or chosen morals.

          Yet on food we can do nothing else but to accept, that our survival is, without exception, based on the extermination of other species. Its natures law and the best we can do to feel better about it, is to minimize the suffering of the life-forms we enslave and consume.

          Doing so, needs our respect towards other beings by which an artificial claim of being superior over them, is not helpful at all. On the contrary, as our history and cruelty tells us.

          Farming chicken for eggs does not call for conditions similar to 'concentration camps'. Farming pigs for meat does not call to lock them up in tiny cages.

          This only happens, when respect is overruled by other interests which are viewed higher of value than the well being of other creatures.

          Natural food-chains include a lot of suffering, as many species does not kill their prey always quick and painless. But on this I see the human species the only one capable to reflect on it and to act differently by choice. A necessity to do so is not existent, but then we should review the meaning of our morals in general and to be at least honest about it.
      • thumb
        Jan 31 2014: Thanks for this, Lejan .. I believe I'm starting to understand your position better. Can you say more about why you assert humanity is the cruelest species on earth? I see humanity doing kind acts, too. For example, once I found an injured baby bird on the sidewalk. I made a couple of telephone calls, and I found out where I could take the bird so that it could be nursed to health. It was a private home that accepted injured birds from various people like me. This is a kind act, would you say? But no other species would have done it for the baby bird?
        • thumb
          Jan 31 2014: I don't know any other species which kills its own kin as systematically and 'effectively' as ours and this also for other reason than for food. What makes us cruel is that fact, that our species is capable of empathy, which introduces the concept of choice to act accordingly.

          Caring for a baby bird is pure empathy and I can easily imagine a solider acting on one as you described, while taking the life of an defined enemy one hour later by a drone attack he/she performed.

          And if we would estimate how much poverty, how much hunger we could have eliminated by the resources we reserve for our military purposes, we seem far off even to be in balance with our potential to care, leave alone the given readiness to finally use the mentioned equipment.

          Its still a long way for our species on our path of social evolution, and it seems to me we haven't come far since we left our trees.
      • thumb
        Feb 2 2014: that's a pretty deep topic, Lejan .. I would think part of our cruelty is that we have designed tools and weapons, whereas the other animals have not. If they designed tools and weapons they might become cruel to each other too?

        One also has to realize that the human race has been more successful at growing its numbers than other species, thus phenomena like war might have an aspect of "bleeding off" the population, keeping the population increase in check? Whereas most animal species exist on the ragged edge of survival and there is no pressure to reduce the numbers?

        But, Lejan ., would it be fair to say that I am defending the human race, whereas you are finding major fault with us? But isn't your position kind of depressing, isn't it more cheerful to look for the good points?
        • thumb

          Lejan .

          • +1
          Feb 2 2014: Recognition is no matter of choice, Greg, avoidance is.

          When I look at my own species, I am neither patriotic nor misanthropic about it and take the plain data to draw my conclusions.

          The result of this was and still is pretty depressing due to the given mismatch of my formative personal experiences and therefore expectations, but I would be insincere to myself to neglect our imperfections to exclusively focus on our perfections instead.

          The only philosophical concept helping me a bit with this saddening findings is the harmony of balance, the Ying/Yang, although the concept itself isn't fully satisfying which results in my given tendency to be slightly more towards a cultural pessimistic attitude if it comes to general questions about our species.

          But as for any 'throwing stones in a glass house' business, I am closest to my reflective field studies and my very own and overall contributions to it.

          So if I get the impression, that I haven't come across enough smiling people on Monday, I simply make them. It is my choice, I am aware of it, I do use it and love to be used by the choice of others!

          This and a hardwired optimism within my brain is what keeps me highly skeptic, equally aware for good and the bad and able to maintain a minimum of hope at the same time, for me to find reason.

          Could we do better? Yes! Could we do worse? Yes, but not much though! ;o)

          Which gives us enough to do get harmony into balance, at least, and then we'll see how to improve from there.
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2014: well, what if anything do you do to fight cruelty in the world at large?
        • thumb
          Feb 4 2014: As anybody who is not explicitly devoting ones life in this field, my direct influence on world cruelty is pretty limited and almost reduced to small angles of degrees as an consumer and voter within questionable economic frames and democratic realities.

          So besides spreading my word every now and then and acting locally in my best possible fashion and as continuously and consistently as possible to my morals, there isn't much else I am doing right now.
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2014: Well, what cruelties do you perceive in the world, Lejan ., I believe you mentioned war, and also food animals being raised under bad conditions? If you could, how would you try to prevent war? That would make a good TED conversations topic, no, "How would you prevent war?" Do you want to host that one, I'm going to think about it myself. I'm having trouble, every time I attempt to submit a TED conversations topic, I'm getting a message csrf attack detected and I can't submit. So I copy the submission and send it to them via my own email account.

        I can possibly suggest an easy way to fight animal cruelty. If you recall, for about five years now I've been living almost entirely on skim cow's milk, every day I drink about two gallons (7.5 liters) of skim cow's milk, and I hardly eat or drink anything else. For most of that time I was buying what they call "conventional" skim milk. "Conventional" means the cows that produced the milk are living on "factory farms," in other words they're very close together, lying in their own manure, when hungry they wander over to the food area where cut hay is brought in and laid in front of them. But I learned that if I buy organic milk, the cows will have a better life. In California, for a farmer to call the milk organic, the cows by law must be grazed on real pastures where they are eating grass growing from the ground at least 75% of the year. So I shifted and began only buying organic because I thought those cows have a better life. The organic is quite a bit more expensive, but to me it is worth it. So maybe in Germany if you went to organic you might be helping out some animals?

        Spreading your word here and there, and did you say you encourage smiling in yourself and others, is a good thing.

        You don't actually live near farms, do you?

        Do you see manifestations of cruelty locally (not just related to animals)?
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2014: I actually tried to start a conversation about the bed-in for peace, do you remember when John Lennon and Yoko Ono lay in bed for a week in a hotel room in Toronto to promote peace? But TED wouldn't accept it. Here's John and Yoko's movie about it, this is on Yoko's YouTube channel, looks like she has a number of good peace videos on there:
    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: that seems very smart, Carolyn, to keep a little distance and think of it as an experiment. What other experiments, if any, are you running within the larger cultural umbrella?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 20 2014: so you're envisioning creating food rituals like this for non-Jewish people? Do you already have some specifically in mind? I can kind of think that eating turkey at Thanksgiving (in the U.S.) might fit into what you're thinking about.

      My diet is kind of unique, Carolyn. For about five years now, I've been living almost entirely on skim milk. Every day I drink about two gallons of skim milk, and I hardly eat or drink anything else. It has been fantastic for my health. I got the idea from the maasai tribe of kenya. They are famous for living only on foods from their cows, milk and beef. If you don't know anything about them, here is a little: I suppose when I drink milk I think of how brilliant the Maasai were to think of living on milk, when most of the world lives on a great variety of foods.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 20 2014: brendan, am I getting that the female sex is better with the right half of the brain? Why would that be? But do you really believe that half of the brain ideology, thoughts would travel freely throughout the brain, wouldn't they, it's not like there's a concrete block between the two halves?

      When you study this, is it a vocation, or an avocation?
  • thumb
    Jan 19 2014: Hello Greg :) Well, because we are not able to perceive anything as a whole impression, or as a real "thing in itself", and moreover, all our impressions are highly unstable, constantly changing/fluctuating, our knowledge is forever incomplete and it is fluctuating as well, no matter how confident we might feel about our "clear" impressions and explanations of them, "precise" research or firm opinions.

    Therefore, my understanding of knowledge (personal understanding) is that while we absolutely depend on our limited and illusive nature of perceptions, we have nothing else to compare our own realities to, I mean, we have no ability to experience something drastically different from our own human existence.

    Moreover, we are entirely missing quintessential knowledge about How we may perceive at all, what our limitations are, and Why we are limited. We still do not know what sort of nature's laws govern our own minds while we sense and perceive our realities.

    Well, my work is about entering this new fascinating field..

    Thank you for asking.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 19 2014: so it is the food, but also it is something bigger, how the food is mixed into the history. So are you reading histories of food, or....?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Lejan .

      • +1
      Jan 22 2014: Predators are killing machines, as thats their mechanism of survival ... and our species, like it or not, is one of them. Intelligence is no cure against violence, on the contrary. But empathy is, by which, in my view, your 'sentimentality' is your strongest argument not to eat animals.

      You may find that intelligence among animals is almost bound to predators to increase their success rate against the more 'stupid' ones, which on this matter makes our species again pretty 'incurable' I am afraid ...

      I am not certain if our 'brains' will ever be capable to overcome the embossing ages of our origin since our ongoing uprise from our natural environment to our current state. And not to sound to pessimistic, lets say there is quite a good potential for improvement ...

      Regarding 'intelligence' as another criteria for what to eat and what not, I smiled, as it gets some people I met in my life closer to my plate as I wish them to be ... and me to those of others. So I rather have us stick on this one to 'sentimentality' exclusively ... :o)
      • thumb
        Jan 22 2014: Haha~~! :)
        Long time no see~!
        • thumb

          Lejan .

          • +1
          Jan 22 2014: Your scanning ability, Yoka, would certainly suit the NSA, as you almost tracked my comment in real time ... ;o)
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2014: :) God guided me to find you~!
        I feel like that I were the NSA who had caught Mr. Snowden finally.:)
        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: If there is any God, then she doesn't even know that I exist ... :o)

          So you might have confused her with her twin sister 'Satania', as she does know me and always finds me way to easy for my liking ... :o)

          Anyway, for Mr. Snowden I certainly hope for a better outcome with the NSA than me being traced down by you ... :o)
      • thumb
        Jan 27 2014: I've heard that the American government has planned to assassinate Mr. Snowden in all kinds of ways regardless of any cost. What a pity~! He's a good guy with the justice~. Let's hope for his good luck together~!
        • thumb
          Jan 27 2014: Interesting, isn't it? For a nation who starts wars to end suppression in others, at least officially, one would expect a different behavior towards Mr. Snowden, right?
  • thumb
    Jan 10 2014: I have researched processes of teaching and learning in schools. I have mostly done this through teaching and observing others teach, interviewing teachers and students, examining artifacts from teachers and learners, looking for patterns and describing and representing them in ways that hopefully can improve the processes. I generally enjoyed it--I think it's enjoyable to pursue questions and feel you are understanding things more deeply. But more than that, a lot of self-efficacy comes from using my knowledge and experience with all this to help people achieve their goals.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: marjorie, how are you using the word "self-efficacy" in the last sentence? I would understand if you said a lot of satisfaction comes from using your knowledge and experience to help people achieve their goals; and I would understand if you said a lot of happiness comes from using your knowledge and experience to help people achieve their goals; but I don't understand when you say a lot of self-efficacy comes from using your knowledge and experience to help people achieve their goals. Do you just mean you've become more effective in helping people achieve their goals?

      As a somewhat tangential question, what do you think is the difference between satisfaction and happiness?
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2014: marjorie, is it too big a question to ask what you have learned that you then use to help people achieve their goals?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 6 2014: oh, I thought you were saying that men resent it when a woman strives for a clear agreement, too. Well, that is a good discovery, carolyn.

      speaking for myself, I've been on another side of that. When I would visit my mother, she would sometimes scold me because I wouldn't do some obvious cleaning job, like walk past the sink that had dirty dishes on it. I would say "Well, you didn't ask me to." She would say "well, can't you see what needs to be done?" Eventually I learned to do more cleaning without being asked, I would just look for what needed to be done, and then just do it. I think it is a positive development for me.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 6 2014: so you're saying women are screwed either way, if they don't ask with clarity it bothers men, and if they do ask with clarity it bothers men.

      Can you give me specific example(s) of favors you do and what things you then ask for?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 5 2014: do you discuss ideas much in your life with the people right around you, that is, people you talk to in person rather than over the internet? What was your education like, carolyn, you went to high school, did you go to college? You're working as a hairdresser now, that's a good job but if you went to college maybe you would want to do more of an "intellectual" job? If you never went to college, do you ever consider going now? What would you study if you did go?

      Do you think people on TED make any special effort to build something for the future? In my mind the future is made by every single person on earth, all seven billion people? But maybe people on TED are leaders?
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2014: carolyn, you had mentioned that women and men have some trouble getting along because they approach the world differently? Do you personally get along well with men in general? How do you do it?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 5 2014: well, that one sounds worthwhile. I'm surprised they rejected. Do you have any better idea why they rejected, you only say it "was found not appropriate," but it certainly seems appropriate to me, quite in line with what TED conversations does. Do you have any great desire to host conversations, it's fun to host them, carolyn, as you get more ideas coming in?

      I do disagree with one of your statements which is that our first thoughts are rarely challenged for accuracy. You mean on TED conversations other people don't challenge our first thoughts for accuracy? I don't see that, I see smart people on TED who do question each other and don't just blindly accept each other's first ideas?

      Like I say, I don't really take an attitude of experimenting in life. I think your attitude is quite interesting. Do you know where you got the attitude of experimenting? Does experimenting have a downside?
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2014: if hosting a conversation is something that you would really enjoy, carolyn, I would encourage you to keep trying. What does it cost you, getting rejected, it only takes a few minutes to write a submission? Plus when you write one you often learn something, right, so it helps you even if it gets rejected? Actually you could wait a while and then re-submit some of the ones that got rejected, maybe the second time around they'll get accepted.
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2014: Greg, My Question has been published. Lets see what kind of answers we might get.

    Please take a look:
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 4 2014: what topics did you try with, carolyn? I usually find your comments interesting and intelligent. This topic seems like an excellent one.

      Where do you think you got the attitude of being willing to experiment? Like I say, I don't think of myself as being very experimental, I usually try to figure out in advance what is the most promising thing to do, what seems like it has the greatest chance of success, then I just go ahead and do it. You would agree with me that that is not a very experimental attitude?
  • thumb
    Jan 25 2014: "What would be your background for running a conversation on the morality of eating plants versus animals?"

    Thank you for encouraging....I'm still thinking this is a quintessential subject involving our endless ignorance and arogance running our societies for millennia.

    But there is so much true knowedge and inspirational experience, new understanding, and obvious tendencies to invent/find new morals... Talk to you very soon!
    • thumb
      Jan 26 2014: well, sounds like you might have a good topic, if you know of true knowledge and inspirational experience, new understanding, and obvious tendencies to invent/find new morals. Do you have time to share some of these new experiences and understandings with me?

      For myself I am not a vegetarian by philosophy but in practice I am. For about five years I have been living almost entirely on skim milk from cow, every day I drink about two gallons (7.5 liters) of skim milk and barely eat or drink anything else. It has been great for my health. Among other things I can easily maintain a very healthy weight, I am about six feet two inches and stay at about 168 pounds, which puts me right in the middle of normal on the BMI.
      • thumb
        Jan 26 2014: Exciting.. Talk to you tonight.
      • thumb
        Jan 27 2014: Please let me know if any of these questions below make some sense to you.

        Maybe they can be somehow combined?



        • thumb
          Jan 27 2014: yes, they are all good questions. It slightly seems that the first two could be combined under the third one. The third one is the most general? When you add the explanation to your question, you can add additional questions to the original question.

          What is your diet, Vera? How do you think it affects you?
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2014: Hello Greg. I'm still thinking about how to articulate the new topic...

        My diet? I've changed my diet many times. I was growing up on chocolate and "fat" milk. (When in my high school we had to be checked by a dentist - he always pointed that I was the only one who "takes a very good care" of my teeth making kids laugh..they knew what I was eating instead of my lunch.) I still love dark chocolate and whole(!!) milk, but am trying to buy goat milk. Fresh apples, grapes and baked pears make me very happy.

        I was on macrobiotic diet twice, and this saved my life - literally. I've learned a lot about organic food and buy only organic. My whole house has purified water, from every faucet and showers. I do love to cook, and can do many different cuisine, but my way. I do not trust restaurants.

        It is very important to Experience different diets once in a while, and find your own best. I think that food we eat is always ultimately turning into our Emotional energy and some particular sort of mood.... It is fantastic idea to discuss.

        In my opinion food shall never become any kind of stupid entertainment.

        Good night.

        I'll get back to you tomorrow!
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2014: how have you learned to do many different cuisines? I should assume you are vegetarian, since the topic you want to start seems to suggest that it is bad to eat animals? But I wonder then what motivates people who know about vegetarianism and still choose to eat meat?
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2014: Once upon a time I worked for this very brilliant old man in his 70s who did not want to eat anything but a skinny sandwich - piece of white bread and one slice of plane cheese. He’d have one cup of hot black tea.

        He was very fit, almost skinny and had just a couple of wrinkles on his noble face. I was 19 believing he was brilliant and graceful. Before I’d go to order his sandwich I kept suggesting “a slice of tomato or a piece of lettuce?”
        The answer was “No”.

        Recently, my Dutch friend, who is much younger than my old boss visited me here in the US. He had the same “menu” basically dutch cheese on bread and black tea. The reason was Different. European countries do not trust American food, no one buys it.
        Poorly grown, genetically engineered, cruelly treated and badly fed… etc

        Here is another reason Regarding Meat everywhere in Europe.
        Mad Cow Disease is the main reason why many of my European friends refuse to touch beef and sausages of all sports, Anywhere.
        This illness still happens here, in the US. For the reason that the USDA still approving junk sciences no Us meat is allowed in Europe, as well as very many other food varieties.

        I have some important philosophy about diets to share with you. Our environment, our age, our health are tremendous factors for us to think about... food can heal or kill, it can entertain and lift your spirit or put you down and bore you to death. I've learned from macrobiotics that whatever may grow from the ground or swim in water around you is most likely your salvation in physical and spiritual way. So much to learn! Talk to you later.
      • thumb
        Jan 29 2014: Greg, here is my next Topic I want to try (if they let me publish it)

        Is food only something that feeds our physical bodies in order to move them around, or is it also effecting our hgihly emotional minds in unique ways? Why do we prepare and eat mountains of food just for some entertainment sake and keep playing with it?

        Did you have any experience of healing yourself by practicing any specific diet?

        What do you think?
        • thumb
          Jan 30 2014: I would think it would make an interesting conversation. I think they will publish it.

          Well, what I want from food is delicious taste. When it tastes good it gives me a sense of well-being.

          I myself don't prepare mountains of food, Vera. For five years now, I have been living almost entirely on skim milk. Every day I drink about two gallons, or 7.5 liters, of skim milk, and I hardly eat or drink anything else. I started doing it because I was having some eye trouble but I could not get a good solution from my optometrist. But on this diet I can go without glasses or eye drops.
        • thumb
          Jan 30 2014: I agree with Greg that it seems like a reasonable topic. You might want to check out the food playlist: and maybe some of the 40+ TED talks about food to see which would be most interesting to link to.

          The fact that there are over forty food-related talks suggests the topic might be of interest to the TED community.
      • thumb
        Jan 30 2014: That is the way to heal yourself !! Just make sure your milk is safe (better get organic)

        If I feel something is wrong with me --- I change my diet trying this and that until I feel much better. (I do love milk (cow and goat) and it did not hurt me ever..)

        Food is tremendously Emotional Experience. It can heal us or kill us.

        Well, I'm going to post CAN THE FOOD WE CHOOSE TO EAT MANIFEST OUR INTELLIGENCE, EXPERIENCE AND MORALS ? Or, perhaps, our emotional status?
      • thumb
        Jan 31 2014: Greg, did you read this interesting comment, below, from Fritzie, the Ted's Host ? Great links - please watch these clips..

        -- I agree with Greg that it seems like a reasonable topic. You might want to check out the food playlist: and maybe some of the 40+ TED talks about food to see which would be most interesting to link to.

        The fact that there are over forty food-related talks suggests the topic might be of interest to the TED community. --
  • Jan 25 2014: What does the ability to separate atoms mean to you? If it means nothing, then you have no clue what I have told you. That is what this is all about.. Medicine, science, the environment and the world needs this.
    • thumb
      Jan 26 2014: well, thanks for asking, Bill. I've heard of separating atoms, and it sounded like a good thing to be able to do, but I'm afraid I don't know why. Possibly you get elements that you could not find naturally alone in nature, that might have some sort of practical use? So are you aware of any practical applications for your discovery yet, or is that yet to be investigated?
  • Jan 25 2014: Greg
    Water is the hardest to separate the atoms on, using my Flashing Liquid Process. I found the difference in the boiling temperatures of hydrogen, and oxygen in water is only 18 degrees Fahrenheit. (212 to 230 degrees Fahrenheit).
    Water is used to extinguish fire, so it's cooling effect is fast. This is why to sustain a continuous hydrogen production from water will require a larger mass heat source. It is the large mass that will retain the right temperature while the water is sprayed onto the heater. In my video using the pan on the water the temperature fluctuated, and I could only spray the water once or twice, before the temperature got out of the 18 degrees needed to turn the hydrogen to a gas, while the oxygen remained a liquid, long enough to separate the two atoms. This all means using the Flashing Liquid Process all liquids have more than one boiling temperature..
    • thumb
      Jan 25 2014: so the upshot is that you could use water to provide heat? But wouldn't it take more energy to heat the device that heats the water than the water will provide onces it's heated?
  • Jan 25 2014: Greg
    Almost 30 years ago I went to a seminar on 100 miles per gallon on gasoline vapor. At the time I didn't know the whole thing was a scam. They had hand drawn plans but no working modlel. I duplicated their design, and in trying to get enough heat to vaporize the gasoline, I used an electric fry pan. I was outside, and turned the pan to it's highest temperature. I spilled a small amount of gasoline into the fry pan, and instantly I got a white vapor. I discarded the scam chamber, and started again. I could spray a fine mist of gasoline, and make more white vapor than a vehicle could use. I played with it for over 20 years, had it on 7 different vehicles, tested on 2 different dynamometers, getting a 50% increase in horsepower over gasoline. I tested it on one smog analyzer, and got a zero parts per million hydrocarbon reading. Nobody, still today can do this, unless they use my Flashing Liquid Process, spraying the liquid onto the heated surface at the right temperature.
    I put it on You Tube, and got many questions. In trying to answer the questions, I came to realize just what I did. I discovered gasoline is suppose to auto ignite around 530 degrees Fahrenheit, however science is not perfect. You see I have seen a wrought iron electric heating element turn a dull red before the gasoline would ignite, this is around 800 to 1000 degrees or hotter. I had been playing with gasoline in a temperature range that science says does not exist, for over 29 years. I had created a non flammable liquid and a white vapor, of which neither would mix with the gasoline they were created from. In the last 2 years I realized I separated the atoms in gasoline, and knew it could be done to any liquid. It comes down to the right temperature applied the right way. You see heat transfer happens first, but if you apply a fine mist of the liquid onto the heated surface, the fine droplets will go to the heater temperature first and boil at that temperature, separating atoms.
    • thumb
      Jan 25 2014: What's the advantage of a 50% increase in horsepower, you still have to follow the speed laws? Are you saying this is the main benefit of your discovery, Bill?

      Why is it important that science might be wrong, that gasoline would have to go to a higher tempature to ignite than what science says?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: so how did you research it?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jan 23 2014: then are you also a hating person, Lilly? What were the comments when you said all humans should be fed first? What were the comments when you said there should be no borders or flags? I probably feel hate from time to time but it is exhausting to maintain hate for lengthy periods of time.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jan 24 2014: well, I suppose there is some love in saying "I love my border and flag"?

          feed the hungry, well, maybe they really disagreed with you, maybe this is what they really think.

          Well, how often do you feel love, lilly, or do you even believe in love?

          Is there anyone who is free from emotional pressure?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jan 24 2014: but you don't see any love in the world, lilly? This keyboard I am typing on was not invented and made with love?

          Again, you don't see some love in someone saying "I love my border and I love my flag"? Even though the love also leads to some hate.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jan 25 2014: but lilly don't you make an independent decision as to what ideas you will follow and which you won't? Just because your culture presents a value does not mean you adopt it?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: you're saying you asked people in different countries if they thought hate was the top emotion of the species? Or....?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: Linen of the ill, can you say what you mean? Belief in god is not essential to these food rituals, or is there some reason why it is?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: I apologize, Carolyn. The specific effects you're looking for are how you feel emotionally when you eat vegan, versus when you eat carnivore?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: carolyn, what would you say makes it a food ritual? Is it that you say some words, tell a story, over the food? So if every time we served turkey at Thanksgiving we told the story of the Pilgrims coming to America, does it then become a food ritual? What is it about saying the words that makes it a ritual?
      • thumb
        Jan 30 2014: Repetition, not meaning defines rituals.
        • thumb
          Jan 30 2014: so working on an assembly line, doing the same thing over and over, is a ritual, Lejan .?
        • thumb
          Jan 30 2014: by the way, Lejan ., I was thinking about it last night, and it seemed to me that maybe one advantage to humans that they have lost most of their animal hair is that when they bathe, they can dry off faster, when an animal bathes it must walk around with wet fur for quite some time and perhaps catch a cold?
      • thumb
        Jan 30 2014: In the world of employment, assembly lines are definitely ritualistic. Highly boring and stress inducing.
      • thumb
        Jan 30 2014: The Japanese Macaques apes seem to cope with drying off their fur quite nicely and this even under harshest temperature conditions going from one extreme to another ...
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 22 2014: Hello Brendan. Just a general question. When you conduct, or are involved in your reasearch is it important to somehow understand HOW the observers, themselves, manage to perceive the appearances of brains? What might be happening in the researchers own brains while they observe? How the reserachers' personal sensations and perceptions of their sensations, may effect their thinking?

      How objectively do you think you might observe other's brains? If you say Yes what would be the standard explanation for this term, "objective"? Is this objective knowledge related to some specific statistics?

      I have more questions, but please let me know if you're interested in answering at least these, above.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jan 22 2014: Understand where you are, Brendan!
          but I'm in a new field researching the nature's laws of perceptions. Without this crucially vital process of perceiving no brains, with their cells and neurons would be possible to see .. We need to understand this process Before we examine what sorts of microscopes or math applications we'll be using in our research..well, I would not bother you.

          This is just a little amusing treat for you. JONAS SALK has described how he conducted his important research by behaving himself as living cells.
          He also said:

          The art of science is as important as so-called technical science. You need both. It's this combination that must be recognized and acknowledged and valued. ..You can have a team of unconventional thinkers, as well as conventional thinkers. If you don't have the support of others you cannot achieve anything altogether on your own. It's like a cry in the wilderness. In each instance there were others who could see the same thing, and there were others who could not. It's an obvious difference we see in those who you might say have a bird's eye view, and those who have a worm's eye view. I've come to realize that we all have a different mind set, we all see things differently.."

          Best luck with your work :)
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 20 2014: now what is your thesis, Bryan, because haven't you put forward several ideas?

      Which is it, are they more complicated than left brain/right brain, or are they not? If there is some question, perhaps we need a new nomenclature? For me, it feels like my thoughts originate in the center of my brain in two dimensions, a little below center in the third dimension, height. But thanks, I never really articulated to anyone before where my thoughts originate.

      You're saying that women are more right-brain-oriented? Does this mean that they have more neurons in their right brain? Or the neurons are more active in their right brain? But are we all just prisoners of our physiology, where does culture and acculturation fit in for you, if at all?

      Where do you live, I enjoy getting a bit of a picture of my co-conversationalist's environment and living manner?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jan 22 2014: No, honestly, Brendan, I wasn't looking for a debate. I just have never met anyone who is interested in the physical brain before, I've only met people who were interested in the thoughts and creations that emerged from the brain. Now you refer below to the "male-dominant" left brain. What does this phrase mean?

          Be honest, Brendan, when I started this conversation I didn't have a larger purpose like I usually do, usually on my conversations I see that there's something in the conversation for both the host and the respondents, but in this one it seems like it's only beneficial to me, in other words I get to learn about other people's research, but I don't know that they get much coming back. And yet I have a feeling this could be a valuable conversation for everyone, I just don't know how yet. Do you get anything out of sharing your research with me, and whoever reads this, or is it only a case where I'm benefiting by tapping into your learning?

          No, Bryan's tone is really different, he's into acidly funny, brief comments.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 19 2014: hmm, I would have thought the great interest was the thoughts produced by the brain. But you're emphasizing the physical nature of the brain? Why is that so interesting?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 16 2014: so what did you mean by food rituals? Did you mean getting non-Jewish people to eat kosher food? Or aren't there special foods that Jewish people eat on Passover, are you thinking non-Jews should try some of these foods? Or....?
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2014: Thank you for noticing my post, Greg. Just as an example, I'd like to reprint something from my work.

    from Ch. 3 MIND AND MEMORY

    ..An employee goes to see his new boss.  He enters the office and talks to the boss for a few minutes. He leaves the office with an impression that he knows his boss' appearance, and that he remembers his voice and the  conversation.
    This employee has great confidence that he remembers his boss as he really is. 
     If we were able to peek inside "print out" the employee's mind, we would  see the craziest sights, crazier than surrealistic paintings by Rene Magritte or Salvador  Dali.  The employee's  memory would display a portion of his boss' nose, the  top of one ear,  the vague image of a window behind the boss' faceless head, a snippet of his boss’ voice,  a small part of the surface of his boss’ desk loaded with  papers, and just the front of the boss' shoe sticking out from under  the desk.
    Incomplete images of his wife speaking to him earlier that day about this meeting would also be scattered about.  All of these pieces would be floating in his memory, merging into new and different combinations, falling apart, then merging again.
    This is a typical mind and its memory, composing "imprinted" pieces of our impressions from our experience .
    A reflection of exactly what we have seen is not achievable by any mind.
    The observations of a  researcher, scientist, medical doctor, philosopher, teacher, or any of us for that matter,  are merely impressions , thus we employ mere fluctuating impressions as the basis for our conclusions.
    How these impressions are created is dictated by our Process of Perceiving and its Underlying natural  laws?
    (Read more on Perceptions)
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2014: well, I feel like I usually remember the whole face of someone I talk with awhile, Vera. You don't? You don't think most people do? But let's say someone didn't remember the whole face, why would that matter? I suppose in certain situations, like if you're trying to recall what someone looked like who committed a crime, you might care, but that's a pretty rare situation.
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2014: My point is that when we believe that we really "know" something we have an illusion of "knowing things exactly as they are". If you feel that you remember someone's face perfectly, in reality you only remember some fragments of it, and these are never fixed in your mind. They are floating in your mind, appearing from the deep subconsciousness on the superficial canvas of your consciousness, and diving back into your subconscious mind.

        You, as the only observer of your own memories, "catch", collect these fragments/features and put them in a recognizable to you combination. Well, you call it "a face" but it is the result of a very complicated process of memorizing.

        Even when we look at somebody's face we cannot see the front and sides of that face at the same time etc, we cannot fix our corporeal eyes themselves, the pupils "move" constantly.

        I'm much more interested in mind's perceptions and memory.

        You might be interested in great work by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, outstanding French researcher and philosopher. He writes about how our impressions of reality create our illusions of reality.

        I think that perceiving and memorizing can be explained based on how we paint on canvas - some artists can imitated what they see "realistically" and some create crazy impressions. The "crazier" impressions become, I think, the deeper we react on our forever invisible contacts/interactions with the objective reality… The "exact", detailed impressions are very flat, superficial, like mirrors.

        We are now talking about a still unknown to us field of our own perceptions.
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2014: well, even I agree that we are only catching a portion of the face, or the look, why is this important, Vera?
        • thumb
          Jan 20 2014: so what would be the practical uses of this way of seeing the brain, Vera? It might influence painters, or......?
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: Love your bold question. My field: Human perceptions, instinctive/subconscious and corporeal sense-perceptions. As we learn and understand a little more about How we are able to put together our internal mind's realties, and How our personal thoughts and ideas, trees, water, universes, other individuals, "things" and events appear within our minds, we would be able to make a significant progress and re-direct our old mentality which is recycling since Plato and Aristotle time.

    HOW TO APPLY NEW KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNDERLYING LAWS OF HUMAN PERCEPTION in a wide variety of fields is my next task.

    I'm in the new field that has no official name yet. This research is related to epistemology, cognitive science, philosophy from Heraclitus and Protagoras, to George Berkeley, I. Kant and Werner Heisenberg, with great respect to comprehensive work by Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Henri Bergson.

    it also conceders our perceptions in arts as a new source for comprehending human behavior.
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2014: Thanks, Vera, what is so bold about my question? What is the old mentality recycling since Plato and Aristotle's time? Is this something you're studying in school?
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2014: ……….
        Your question "What is the old mentality recycling since Plato and Aristotle's time?"

        Our perceptions are naturally very crude and limited. Our sight is an effemeral tool of mind, No matter how hard we try to artificially augment our corporeal sight it remains the most illusive and deceiving of all perceptions we may possess. However, "artistically" speaking, Crudeness and instability of our perceptions is a nature's blessing allowing us to fantasize (like Plato) and believe in illusions of ideals, order, balance, equation, symbols, identical mathematical and other units and copies, borders and shapes, perfect rules, morals and systems. However, we cannot stop the world of unstoppable changes for our observations, calculations, ideals, and make the world repeat its turns for us for to prove our experience, whether we deal with sciences or our everyday judgements. Throughout history of philosophy we can find great minds talking about how impossible for us to see the world as it is "out there".

        My main work is to explain WHY, and HOW. How our sensations and perceptions of sensations, are getting composed into our internal realities, images, thoughts, dreams and memories, within our minds, while going through instant transformations, within and without.
        Your next question "Is this something you're studying in school?"

        I started reading classical philosophy since I was 11, long before my science schools, and found my freedom only years after..
  • Jan 14 2014: Professionally, Computer Graphics, Computer/Human Interfaces, Computer Networks, System Design, and Computer Architecture.

    Personally: I have been studying the educational system.
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2014: now you're retired, wayne? What is your interest in the educational system? When you were doing the different aspects of computers, how typically would you research to get a given answer?
      • Jan 19 2014: With computers, normal scientific method - come up with a hypothesis and create experiments to test the hypothesis. The problem came up when you are working on something that needs a large population for the experiment. Usually in that case, the true experiment is a beta test. You do smaller tests but they are usually indication but not proofs.

        Retired, I get to work on the problems I have not had the time to work on. Right now I am building my server farm up for a test of a distributed file system but along the way I am fixing some things I did not like in the basic server architecture.

        I got involved in education when my children tried out public education and we put them into private school. I started working on the district planning committees and ran for the school board several times.
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2014: so what are you learning about education, is it a case where you're dissatisfied and looking for a way to make it better (something we see often on TED conversations), or.....?
      • Jan 20 2014: Yup found so many things wrong and the process seems to protect the bad teachers, the bad administrators, bad parents, bad practices
        • thumb
          Jan 25 2014: what are the bad practices, are they real fundamentals in the education system, or more superficial aspects?
      • Jan 26 2014: Lets give an example that has been in the news a lot - Tenure and labor unions for teachers. Tenure came out of the universities to support academic freedom (i.e. the ability to take unpopular stand, especially in research). It has evolved and been applied to the lower levels of education due to the fact that early on when someone became a Principal of a school or a school superintendent, they would fire the teachers and hire people they liked. Many times these people were not good teachers. Labor unions came into the picture to protect teachers from bad practices by management and try to get a livable wage.

        Both started off with good intentions but today they are used to keep bad teachers on the job. What is needed is something that works on a case by case bases versus a broad brush approach. Think that is a problem with many laws, broad brush to fix a problem which eventually becomes a problem.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 15 2014: you must be encouraged when you see intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: carolyn, this looks like an interesting reply, but as I start into it I'm having trouble parsing all the statements. I understand the first three sentences. But I'm not following the fourth. You're trying to understand why you like veganism, correct? In the fourth sentence you say you're not in agreement with Darwin about survival of the fittest. How does your not being in agreement with him help you understand why you like veganism?
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2014: yeah, I had never heard before that Darwin's theory was used to support meat eating. Doing a little research myself, it looks like wild cattle, which are vegetarian, live about 15 years, and wild lions, who are meat eaters, also live about 15 years. So it looks like neither diet is better?

      How are you researching why Jewish culture is tenacious?