1. The Mind-Body Problem and the History of Dualism

1.1 The Mind-Body Problem

The mind-body problem is the problem: what is the relationship between mind and body? Or alternatively: what is the relationship between mental properties and physical properties?

Humans have (or seem to have) both physical properties and mental properties. People have (or seem to have)the sort of properties attributed in the physical sciences. These physical properties include size, weight, shape, colour, motion through space and time, etc. But they also have (or seem to have) mental properties, which we do not attribute to typical physical objects These properties involve consciousness (including perceptual experience, emotional experience, and much else), intentionality (including beliefs, desires, and much else), and they are possessed by a subject or a self. Physical properties are public, in the sense that they are, in principle, equally observable by anyone. Some physical properties – like those of an electron – are not directly observable at all, but they are equally available to all, to the same degree, with scientific equipment and techniques. The same is not true of mental properties. I may be able to tell that you are in pain by your behaviour, but only you can feel it directly. Similarly, you just know how something looks to you, and I can only surmise. Conscious mental events are private to the subject, who has a privileged access to them of a kind no-one has to the physical. The mind-body problem concerns the relationship between these two sets of properties. The mind-body problem breaks down into a number of components. The ontological question: what are mental states and what are physical states? Is one class a subclass of the other, so that all mental states are physical, or vice versa? Or are mental states and physical states entirely distinct?

The causal question: do physical states influence mental states? Do mental states influence physical states? If so, how?

Different aspects of the mind-body problem arise for different aspects of the mental, such as consciousness, intentionality, the self. The problem of consciousness: what is consciousness? How is it related to the brain and the body? The problem of intentionality: what is intentionality? How is it related to the brain and the body? The problem of the self: what is the self? How is it related to the brain and the body? Other aspects of the mind-body problem arise for aspects of the physical. For example:

 

The problem of embodiment: what is it for the mind to be housed in a body? What is it for a body to belong to a particular subject?

The seemingly intractable nature of these problems have given rise to many different philosophical views.

 

Materialist views say that, despite appearances to the contrary, mental states are just physical states. Behaviourism, functionalism, mind-brain identity theory and the computational theory of mind are examples of how materialists attempt to explain how this can be so. The most common factor in such theories is the attempt to explicate the nature of mind and consciousness in terms of their ability to directly or indirectly modify behaviour, but there are versions of materialism that try to tie the mental to the physical without explicitly explaining the mental in terms of its behaviour-modifying role. The latter are often grouped together under the label ‘non-reductive physicalism’, though this label is itself rendered elusive because of the controversial nature of the term ‘reduction’.

 

Idealist views say that physical states are really mental. This is because the physical world is an empirical world and, as such, it is the intersubjective product of our collective experience.

 

Dualist views (the subject of this entry) say that the mental and the physical are both real and neither can be assimilated to the other. For the various forms that dualism can take and the associated problems, see below.

 

In sum, we can say that there is a mind-body problem because both consciousness and thought, broadly construed, seem very different from anything physical and there is no convincing consensus on how to build a satisfactorily unified picture of creatures possessed of both a mind and a body.

 

Other entries which concern aspects of the mind-body problem include (among many others): behaviorism, consciousness, eliminative materialism, epiphenomenalism, functionalism, identity theory, intentionality, mental causation, neutral monism, and physicalism.

 

1.2 History of dualism

In dualism, ‘mind’ is contrasted with ‘body’, but at different times, different aspects of the mind have been the centre of attention. In the classical and mediaeval periods, it was the intellect that was thought to be most obviously resistant to a materialistic account: from Descartes on, the main stumbling block to materialist monism was supposed to be ‘consciousness’, of which phenomenal consciousness or sensation came to be considered as the paradigm instance.

 

The classical emphasis originates in Plato’s Phaedo. Plato believed that the true substances are not physical bodies, which are ephemeral, but the eternal Forms of which bodies are imperfect copies. These Forms not only make the world possible, they also make it intelligible, because they perform the role of universals, or what Frege called ‘concepts’. It is their connection with intelligibility that is relevant to the philosophy of mind. Because Forms are the grounds of intelligibility, they are what the intellect must grasp in the process of understanding. In Phaedo Plato presents a variety of arguments for the immortality of the soul, but the one that is relevant for our purposes is that the intellect is immaterial because Forms are immaterial and intellect must have an affinity with the Forms it apprehends (78b4–84b8). This affinity is so strong that the soul strives to leave the body in which it is imprisoned and to dwell in the realm of Forms. It may take many reincarnations before this is achieved. Plato’s dualism is not, therefore, simply a doctrine in the philosophy of mind, but an integral part of his whole metaphysics.

 

One problem with Plato’s dualism was that, though he speaks of the soul as imprisoned in the body, there is no clear account of what binds a particular soul to a particular body. Their difference in nature makes the union a mystery.

 

Aristotle did not believe in Platonic Forms, existing independently of their instances. Aristotelian forms (the capital ‘F’ has disappeared with their standing as autonomous entities) are the natures and properties of things and exist embodied in those things. This enabled Aristotle to explain the union of body and soul by saying that the soul is the form of the body. This means that a particular person’s soul is no more than his nature as a human being. Because this seems to make the soul into a property of the body, it led many interpreters, both ancient and modern, to interpret his theory as materialistic. The interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy of mind – and, indeed, of his whole doctrine of form – remains as live an issue today as it was immediately after his death (Robinson 1983 and 1991; Nussbaum 1984; Rorty and Nussbaum, eds, 1992). Nevertheless, the text makes it clear that Aristotle believed that the intellect, though part of the soul, differs from other faculties in not having a bodily organ. His argument for this constitutes a more tightly argued case than Plato’s for the immateriality of thought and, hence, for a kind of dualism. He argued that the intellect must be immaterial because if it were material it could not receive all forms. Just as the eye, because of its particular physical nature, is sensitive to light but not to sound, and the ear to sound and not to light, so, if the intellect were in a physical organ it could be sensitive only to a restricted range of physical things; but this is not the case, for we can think about any kind of material object (De Anima III,4; 429a10–b9). As it does not have a material organ, its activity must be essentially immaterial.

 

It is common for modern Aristotelians, who otherwise have a high view of Aristotle’s relevance to modern philosophy, to treat this argument as being of purely historical interest, and not essential to Aristotle’s system as a whole. They emphasize that he was not a ‘Cartesian’ dualist, because the intellect is an aspect of the soul and the soul is the form of the body, not a separate substance. Kenny (1989) argues that Aristotle’s theory of mind as form gives him an account similar to Ryle (1949), for it makes the soul equivalent to the dispositions possessed by a living body. This ‘anti-Cartesian’ approach to Aristotle arguably ignores the fact that, for Aristotle, the form is the substance.

 

These issues might seem to be of purely historical interest. But we shall see in below, in section 4.5, that this is not so.

 

The identification of form and substance is a feature of Aristotle’s system that Aquinas effectively exploits in this context, identifying soul, intellect and form, and treating them as a substance. (See, for example, Aquinas (1912), Part I, questions 75 and 76.) But though the form (and, hence, the intellect with which it is identical) are the substance of the human person, they are not the person itself. Aquinas says that when one addresses prayers to a saint – other than the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is believed to retain her body in heaven and is, therefore, always a complete person – one should say, not, for example, ‘Saint Peter pray for us’, but ‘soul of Saint Peter pray for us’. The soul, though an immaterial substance, is the person only when united with its body. Without the body, those aspects of its personal memory that depend on images (which are held to be corporeal) will be lost.(See Aquinas (1912), Part I, question 89.)

 

The more modern versions of dualism have their origin in Descartes’ Meditations, and in the debate that was consequent upon Descartes’ theory. Descartes was a substance dualist. He believed that there were two kinds of substance: matter, of which the essential property is that it is spatially extended; and mind, of which the essential property is that it thinks. Descartes’ conception of the relation between mind and body was quite different from that held in the Aristotelian tradition. For Aristotle, there is no exact science of matter. How matter behaves is essentially affected by the form that is in it. You cannot combine just any matter with any form – you cannot make a knife out of butter, nor a human being out of paper – so the nature of the matter is a necessary condition for the nature of the substance. But the nature of the substance does not follow from the nature of its matter alone: there is no ‘bottom up’ account of substances. Matter is a determinable made determinate by form. This was how Aristotle thought that he was able to explain the connection of soul to body: a particular soul exists as the organizing principle in a particular parcel of matter.

 

The belief in the relative indeterminacy of matter is one reason for Aristotle’s rejection of atomism. If matter is atomic, then it is already a collection of determinate objects in its own right, and it becomes natural to regard the properties of macroscopic substances as mere summations of the natures of the atoms.

 

Although, unlike most of his fashionable contemporaries and immediate successors, Descartes was not an atomist, he was, like the others, a mechanist about the properties of matter. Bodies are machines that work according to their own laws. Except where there are minds interfering with it, matter proceeds deterministically, in its own right. Where there are minds requiring to influence bodies, they must work by ‘pulling levers’ in a piece of machinery that already has its own laws of operation. This raises the question of where those ‘levers’ are in the body. Descartes opted for the pineal gland, mainly because it is not duplicated on both sides of the brain, so it is a candidate for having a unique, unifying function.

 

The main uncertainty that faced Descartes and his contemporaries, however, was not where interaction took place, but how two things so different as thought and extension could interact at all. This would be particularly mysterious if one had an impact view of causal interaction, as would anyone influenced by atomism, for whom the paradigm of causation is like two billiard balls cannoning off one another.

 

Various of Descartes’ disciples, such as Arnold Geulincx and Nicholas Malebranche, concluded that all mind-body interactions required the direct intervention of God. The appropriate states of mind and body were only the occasions for such intervention, not real causes. Now it would be convenient to think that occasionalists held that all causation was natural except for that between mind and body. In fact they generalized their conclusion and treated all causation as directly dependent on God. Why this was so, we cannot discuss here.

 

Descartes’ conception of a dualism of substances came under attack from the more radical empiricists, who found it difficult to attach sense to the concept of substance at all. Locke, as a moderate empiricist, accepted that there were both material and immaterial substances. Berkeley famously rejected material substance, because he rejected all existence outside the mind. In his early Notebooks, he toyed with the idea of rejecting immaterial substance, because we could have no idea of it, and reducing the self to a collection of the ‘ideas’ that constituted its contents. Finally, he decided that the self, conceived as something over and above the ideas of which it was aware, was essential for an adequate understanding of the human person. Although the self and its acts are not presented to consciousness as objects of awareness, we are obliquely aware of them simply by dint of being active subjects. Hume rejected such claims, and proclaimed the self to be nothing more than a concatenation of its ephemeral contents.

 

In fact, Hume criticised the whole conception of substance for lacking in empirical content: when you search for the owner of the properties that make up a substance, you find nothing but further properties. Consequently, the mind is, he claimed, nothing but a ‘bundle’ or ‘heap’ of impressions and ideas – that is, of particular mental states or events, without an owner. This position has been labelled bundle dualism, and it is a special case of a general bundle theory of substance, according to which objects in general are just organised collections of properties. The problem for the Humean is to explain what binds the elements in the bundle together. This is an issue for any kind of substance, but for material bodies the solution seems fairly straightforward: the unity of a physical bundle is constituted by some form of causal interaction between the elements in the bundle. For the mind, mere causal connection is not enough; some further relation of co-consciousness is required. We shall see in 5.2.1 that it is problematic whether one can treat such a relation as more primitive than the notion of belonging to a subject.

 

One should note the following about Hume’s theory. His bundle theory is a theory about the nature of the unity of the mind. As a theory about this unity, it is not necessarily dualist. Parfit (1970, 1984) and Shoemaker (1984, ch. 2), for example, accept it as physicalists. In general, physicalists will accept it unless they wish to ascribe the unity to the brain or the organism as a whole. Before the bundle theory can be dualist one must accept property dualism, for more about which, see the next section.

 

A crisis in the history of dualism came, however, with the growing popularity of mechanism in science in the nineteenth century. According to the mechanist, the world is, as it would now be expressed, ‘closed under physics’. This means that everything that happens follows from and is in accord with the laws of physics. There is, therefore, no scope for interference in the physical world by the mind in the way that interactionism seems to require. According to the mechanist, the conscious mind is an epiphenomenon (a notion given general currency by T. H. Huxley 1893): that is, it is a by-product of the physical system which has no influence back on it. In this way, the facts of consciousness are acknowledged but the integrity of physical science is preserved. However, many philosophers found it implausible to claim such things as the following; the pain that I have when you hit me, the visual sensations I have when I see the ferocious lion bearing down on me or the conscious sense of understanding I have when I hear your argument – all have nothing directly to do with the way I respond. It is very largely due to the need to avoid this counterintuitiveness that we owe the concern of twentieth century philosophy to devise a plausible form of materialist monism. But, although dualism has been out of fashion in psychology since the advent of behaviourism (Watson 1913) and in philosophy since Ryle (1949), the argument is by no means over. Some distinguished neurologists, such as Sherrington (1940) and Eccles (Popper and Eccles 1977) have continued to defend dualism as the only theory that can preserve the data of consciousness. Amongst mainstream philosophers, discontent with physicalism led to a modest revival of property dualism in the last decade of the twentieth century. At least some of the reasons for this should become clear below.

 

2. Varieties of Dualism: Ontology

There are various ways of dividing up kinds of dualism. One natural way is in terms of what sorts of things one chooses to be dualistic about. The most common categories lighted upon for these purposes are substance and property, giving one substance dualism and property dualism. There is, however, an important third category, namely predicate dualism. As this last is the weakest theory, in the sense that it claims least, I shall begin by characterizing it.

 

2.1 Predicate dualism

Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates. For a mental predicate to be reducible, there would be bridging laws connecting types of psychological states to types of physical ones in such a way that the use of the mental predicate carried no information that could not be expressed without it. An example of what we believe to be a true type reduction outside psychology is the case of water, where water is always H2O: something is water if and only if it is H2O. If one were to replace the word ‘water’ by ‘H2O’, it is plausible to say that one could convey all the same information. But the terms in many of the special sciences (that is, any science except physics itself) are not reducible in this way. Not every hurricane or every infectious disease, let alone every devaluation of the currency or every coup d’etat has the same constitutive structure. These states are defined more by what they do than by their composition or structure. Their names are classified as functional terms rather than natural kind terms. It goes with this that such kinds of state are multiply realizable; that is, they may be constituted by different kinds of physical structures under different circumstances. Because of this, unlike in the case of water and H2O, one could not replace these terms by some more basic physical description and still convey the same information. There is no particular description, using the language of physics or chemistry, that would do the work of the word ‘hurricane’, in the way that ‘H2O’ would do the work of ‘water’. It is widely agreed that many, if not all, psychological states are similarly irreducible, and so psychological predicates are not reducible to physical descriptions and one has predicate dualism. (The classic source for irreducibility in the special sciences in general is Fodor (1974), and for irreducibility in the philosophy of mind, Davidson (1971).)

 

2.2 Property Dualism

Whereas predicate dualism says that there are two essentially different kinds of predicates in our language, property dualism says that there are two essentially different kinds of property out in the world. Property dualism can be seen as a step stronger than predicate dualism. Although the predicate ‘hurricane’ is not equivalent to any single description using the language of physics, we believe that each individual hurricane is nothing but a collection of physical atoms behaving in a certain way: one need have no more than the physical atoms, with their normal physical properties, following normal physical laws, for there to be a hurricane. One might say that we need more than the language of physics to describe and explain the weather, but we do not need more than its ontology. There is token identity between each individual hurricane and a mass of atoms, even if there is no type identity between hurricanes as kinds and some particular structure of atoms as a kind. Genuine property dualism occurs when, even at the individual level, the ontology of physics is not sufficient to constitute what is there. The irreducible language is not just another way of describing what there is, it requires that there be something more there than was allowed for in the initial ontology. Until the early part of the twentieth century, it was common to think that biological phenomena (‘life’) required property dualism (an irreducible ‘vital force’), but nowadays the special physical sciences other than psychology are generally thought to involve only predicate dualism. In the case of mind, property dualism is defended by those who argue that the qualitative nature of consciousness is not merely another way of categorizing states of the brain or of behaviour, but a genuinely emergent phenomenon.

 

2.3 Substance Dualism

There are two important concepts deployed in this notion. One is that of substance, the other is the dualism of these substances. A substance is characterized by its properties, but, according to those who believe in substances, it is more than the collection of the properties it possesses, it is the thing which possesses them. So the mind is not just a collection of thoughts, but is that which thinks, an immaterial substance over and above its immaterial states. Properties are the properties of objects. If one is a property dualist, one may wonder what kinds of objects possess the irreducible or immaterial properties in which one believes. One can use a neutral expression and attribute them to persons, but, until one has an account of person, this is not explanatory. One might attribute them to human beings qua animals, or to the brains of these animals. Then one will be holding that these immaterial properties are possessed by what is otherwise a purely material thing. But one may also think that not only mental states are immaterial, but that the subject that possesses them must also be immaterial. Then one will be a dualist about that to which mental states and properties belong as well about the properties themselves. Now one might try to think of these subjects as just bundles of the immaterial states. This is Hume’s view. But if one thinks that the owner of these states is something quite over and above the states themselves, and is immaterial, as they are, one will be a substance dualist.

 

Substance dualism is also often dubbed ‘Cartesian dualism’, but some substance dualists are keen to distinguish their theories from Descartes’s. E. J. Lowe, for example, is a substance dualist, in the following sense. He holds that a normal human being involves two substances, one a body and the other a person. The latter is not, however, a purely mental substance that can be defined in terms of thought or consciousness alone, as Descartes claimed. But persons and their bodies have different identity conditions and are both substances, so there are two substances essentially involved in a human being, hence this is a form of substance dualism. Lowe (2006) claims that his theory is close to P. F. Strawson’s (1959), whilst admitting that Strawson would not have called it substance dualism.

 

3. Varieties of Dualism: Interaction

If mind and body are different realms, in the way required by either property or substance dualism, then there arises the question of how they are related. Common sense tells us that they interact: thoughts and feelings are at least sometimes caused by bodily events and at least sometimes themselves give rise to bodily responses. I shall now consider briefly the problems for interactionism, and its main rivals, epiphenomenalism and parallelism.

 

3.1 Interactionism

Interactionism is the view that mind and body – or mental events and physical events – causally influence each other. That this is so is one of our common-sense beliefs, because it appears to be a feature of everyday experience. The physical world influences my experience through my senses, and I often react behaviourally to those experiences. My thinking, too, influences my speech and my actions. There is, therefore, a massive natural prejudice in favour of interactionism. It has been claimed, however, that it faces serious problems (some of which were anticipated in section 1).

 

The simplest objection to interaction is that, in so far as mental properties, states or substances are of radically different kinds from each other, they lack that communality necessary for interaction. It is generally agreed that, in its most naive form, this objection to interactionism rests on a ‘billiard ball’ picture of causation: if all causation is by impact, how can the material and the immaterial impact upon each other? But if causation is either by a more ethereal force or energy or only a matter of constant conjunction, there would appear to be no problem in principle with the idea of interaction of mind and body.

 

Even if there is no objection in principle, there appears to be a conflict between interactionism and some basic principles of physical science. For example, if causal power was flowing in and out of the physical system, energy would not be conserved, and the conservation of energy is a fundamental scientific law. Various responses have been made to this. One suggestion is that it might be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy, without altering its quantity. (See Averill and Keating 1981). Another response is to challenge the relevance of the conservation principle in this context. The conservation principle states that ‘in a causally isolated system the total amount of energy will remain constant’. Whereas ‘[t]he interactionist denies…that the human body is an isolated system’, so the principle is irrelevant (Larmer (1986), 282: this article presents a good brief survey of the options). This approach has been termed conditionality, namely the view that conservation is conditional on the physical system being closed, that is, that nothing non-physical is interacting or interfering with it, and, of course, the interactionist claims that this condition is, trivially, not met. That conditionality is the best line for the dualist to take, and that other approaches do not work, is defended in Pitts (2019) and Cucu and Pitts (2019). This, they claim, makes the plausibility of interactionism an empirical matter which only close investigation on the fine operation of the brain could hope to settle. Cucu, in a separate article (2018), claims to find critical neuronal events which do not have sufficient physical explanation.This claim clearly needs further investigation.

 

Robins Collins (2011) has claimed that the appeal to conservation by opponents of interactionism is something of a red herring because conservation principles are not ubiquitous in physics. He argues that energy is not conserved in general relativity, in quantum theory, or in the universe taken as a whole. Why then, should we insist on it in mind-brain interaction?

 

Most discussion of interactionism takes place in the context of the assumption that it is incompatible with the world’s being ‘closed under physics’. This is a very natural assumption, but it is not justified if causal overdetermination of behaviour is possible. There could then be a complete physical cause of behaviour, and a mental one. The strongest intuitive objection against overdetermination is clearly stated by Mills (1996: 112), who is himself a defender of overdetermination.

 

For X to be a cause of Y, X must contribute something to Y. The only way a purely mental event could contribute to a purely physical one would be to contribute some feature not already determined by a purely physical event. But if physical closure is true, there is no feature of the purely physical effect that is not contributed by the purely physical cause. Hence interactionism violates physical closure after all.

 

Mills says that this argument is invalid, because a physical event can have features not explained by the event which is its sufficient cause. For example, “the rock’s hitting the window is causally sufficient for the window’s breaking, and the window’s breaking has the feature of being the third window-breaking in the house this year; but the facts about prior window-breakings, rather than the rock’s hitting the window, are what cause this window-breaking to have this feature.”

 

The opponent of overdetermination could perhaps reply that his principle applies, not to every feature of events, but to a subgroup – say, intrinsic features, not merely relational or comparative ones. It is this kind of feature that the mental event would have to cause, but physical closure leaves no room for this. These matters are still controversial.

 

The problem with closure of physics may be radically altered if physical laws are indeterministic, as quantum theory seems to assert. If physical laws are deterministic, then any interference from outside would lead to a breach of those laws. But if they are indeterministic, might not interference produce a result that has a probability greater than zero, and so be consistent with the laws? This way, one might have interaction yet preserve a kind of nomological closure, in the sense that no laws are infringed. Because it involves assessing the significance and consequences of quantum theory, this is a difficult matter for the non-physicist to assess. Some argue that indeterminacy manifests itself only on the subatomic level, being cancelled out by the time one reaches even very tiny macroscopic objects: and human behaviour is a macroscopic phenomenon. Others argue that the structure of the brain is so finely tuned that minute variations could have macroscopic effects, rather in the way that, according to ‘chaos theory’, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in China might affect the weather in New York. (For discussion of this, see Eccles (1980), (1987), and Popper and Eccles (1977).) Still others argue that quantum indeterminacy manifests itself directly at a high level, when acts of observation collapse the wave function, suggesting that the mind may play a direct role in affecting the state of the world (Hodgson 1988; Stapp 1993).

 

3.2 Epiphenomenalism

If the reality of property dualism is not to be denied, but the problem of how the immaterial is to affect the material is to be avoided, then epiphenomenalism may seem to be the answer. According to this theory, mental events are caused by physical events, but have no causal influence on the physical. I have introduced this theory as if its point were to avoid the problem of how two different categories of thing might interact. In fact, it is, at best, an incomplete solution to this problem. If it is mysterious how the non-physical can have it in its nature to influence the physical, it ought to be equally mysterious how the physical can have it in its nature to produce something non-physical. But that this latter is what occurs is an essential claim of epiphenomenalism. (For development of this point, see Green (2003), 149–51). In fact, epiphenomenalism is more effective as a way of saving the autonomy of the physical (the world as ‘closed under physics’) than as a contribution to avoiding the need for the physical and non-physical to have causal commerce.

 

There are at least three serious problems for epiphenomenalism. First, as I indicated in section 1, it is profoundly counterintuitive. What could be more apparent than that it is the pain that I feel that makes me cry, or the visual experience of the boulder rolling towards me that makes me run away? At least one can say that epiphenomenalism is a fall-back position: it tends to be adopted because other options are held to be unacceptable.

 

The second problem is that, if mental states do nothing, there is no reason why they should have evolved. This objection ties in with the first: the intuition there was that conscious states clearly modify our behaviour in certain ways, such as avoiding danger, and it is plain that they are very useful from an evolutionary perspective.

 

Frank Jackson (1982) replies to this objection by saying that it is the brain state associated with pain that evolves for this reason: the sensation is a by-product. Evolution is full of useless or even harmful by-products. For example, polar bears have evolved thick coats to keep them warm, even though this has the damaging side effect that they are heavy to carry. Jackson’s point is true in general, but does not seem to apply very happily to the case of mind. The heaviness of the polar bear’s coat follows directly from those properties and laws which make it warm: one could not, in any simple way, have one without the other. But with mental states, dualistically conceived, the situation is quite the opposite. The laws of physical nature which, the mechanist says, make brain states cause behaviour, in no way explain why brain states should give rise to conscious ones. The laws linking mind and brain are what Feigl (1958) calls nomological danglers, that is, brute facts added onto the body of integrated physical law. Why there should have been by-products of that kind seems to have no evolutionary explanation.

 

The third problem concerns the rationality of belief in epiphenomenalism, via its effect on the problem of other minds. It is natural to say that I know that I have mental states because I experience them directly. But how can I justify my belief that others have them? The simple version of the ‘argument from analogy’ says that I can extrapolate from my own case. I know that certain of my mental states are correlated with certain pieces of behaviour, and so I infer that similar behaviour in others is also accompanied by similar mental states. Many hold that this is a weak argument because it is induction from one instance, namely, my own. The argument is stronger if it is not a simple induction but an ‘argument to the best explanation’. I seem to know from my own case that mental events can be the explanation of behaviour, and I know of no other candidate explanation for typical human behaviour, so I postulate the same explanation for the behaviour of others. But if epiphenomenalism is true, my mental states do not explain my behaviour and there is a physical explanation for the behaviour of others. It is explanatorily redundant to postulate such states for others. I know, by introspection, that I have them, but is it not just as likely that I alone am subject to this quirk of nature, rather than that everyone is?

 

For more detailed treatment and further reading on this topic, see the entry epiphenomenalism.

3.3 Parallelism

The epiphenomenalist wishes to preserve the integrity of physical science and the physical world, and appends those mental features that he cannot reduce. The parallelist preserves both realms intact, but denies all causal interaction between them. They run in harmony with each other, but not because their mutual influence keeps each other in line. That they should behave as if they were interacting would seem to be a bizarre coincidence. This is why parallelism has tended to be adopted only by those – like Leibniz – who believe in a pre-established harmony, set in place by God. The progression of thought can be seen as follows. Descartes believes in a more or less natural form of interaction between immaterial mind and material body. Malebranche thought that this was impossible naturally, and so required God to intervene specifically on each occasion on which interaction was required. Leibniz decided that God might as well set things up so that they always behaved as if they were interacting, without particular intervention being required. Outside such a theistic framework, the theory is incredible. Even within such a framework, one might well sympathise with Berkeley’s instinct that once genuine interaction is ruled out one is best advised to allow that God creates the physical world directly, within the mental realm itself, as a construct out of experience.

 

4. Arguments for Dualism

4.1 The Knowledge Argument Against Physicalism

One category of arguments for dualism is constituted by the standard objections against physicalism. Prime examples are those based on the existence of qualia, the most important of which is the so-called ‘knowledge argument’. Because this argument has its own entry (see the entry qualia: the knowledge argument), I shall deal relatively briefly with it here. One should bear in mind, however, that all arguments against physicalism are also arguments for the irreducible and hence immaterial nature of the mind and, given the existence of the material world, are thus arguments for dualism.

 

The knowledge argument asks us to imagine a future scientist who has lacked a certain sensory modality from birth, but who has acquired a perfect scientific understanding of how this modality operates in others. This scientist – call him Harpo – may have been born stone deaf, but become the world’s greatest expert on the machinery of hearing: he knows everything that there is to know within the range of the physical and behavioural sciences about hearing. Suppose that Harpo, thanks to developments in neurosurgery, has an operation which finally enables him to hear. It is suggested that he will then learn something he did not know before, which can be expressed as what it is like to hear, or the qualitative or phenomenal nature of sound. These qualitative features of experience are generally referred to as qualia. If Harpo learns something new, he did not know everything before. He knew all the physical facts before. So what he learns on coming to hear – the facts about the nature of experience or the nature of qualia – are non-physical. This establishes at least a state or property dualism. (See Jackson 1982; Robinson 1982.)

 

There are at least two lines of response to this popular but controversial argument. First is the ‘ability’ response. According to this, Harpo does not acquire any new factual knowledge, only ‘knowledge how’, in the form of the ability to respond directly to sounds, which he could not do before. This essentially behaviouristic account is exactly what the intuition behind the argument is meant to overthrow. Putting ourselves in Harpo’s position, it is meant to be obvious that what he acquires is knowledge of what something is like, not just how to do something. Such appeals to intuition are always, of course, open to denial by those who claim not to share the intuition. Some ability theorists seem to blur the distinction between knowing what something is like and knowing how to do something, by saying that the ability Harpo acquires is to imagine or remember the nature of sound. In this case, what he acquires the ability to do involves the representation to himself of what the thing is like. But this conception of representing to oneself, especially in the form of imagination, seems sufficiently close to producing in oneself something very like a sensory experience that it only defers the problem: until one has a physicalist gloss on what constitutes such representations as those involved in conscious memory and imagination, no progress has been made.

 

The other line of response is to argue that, although Harpo’s new knowledge is factual, it is not knowledge of a new fact. Rather, it is new way of grasping something that he already knew. He does not realise this, because the concepts employed to capture experience (such as ‘looks red’ or ‘sounds C-sharp’) are similar to demonstratives, and demonstrative concepts lack the kind of descriptive content that allow one to infer what they express from other pieces of information that one may already possess. A total scientific knowledge of the world would not enable you to say which time was ‘now’ or which place was ‘here’. Demonstrative concepts pick something out without saying anything extra about it. Similarly, the scientific knowledge that Harpo originally possessed did not enable him to anticipate what it would be like to re-express some parts of that knowledge using the demonstrative concepts that only experience can give one. The knowledge, therefore, appears to be genuinely new, whereas only the mode of conceiving it is novel.

 

Proponents of the epistemic argument respond that it is problematic to maintain both that the qualitative nature of experience can be genuinely novel, and that the quality itself be the same as some property already grasped scientifically: does not the experience’s phenomenal nature, which the demonstrative concepts capture, constitute a property in its own right? Another way to put this is to say that phenomenal concepts are not pure demonstratives, like ‘here’ and ‘now’, or ‘this’ and ‘that’, because they do capture a genuine qualitative content. Furthermore, experiencing does not seem to consist simply in exercising a particular kind of concept, demonstrative or not. When Harpo has his new form of experience, he does not simply exercise a new concept; he also grasps something new – the phenomenal quality – with that concept. How decisive these considerations are, remains controversial.

 

4.2 The Argument from Predicate Dualism to Property Dualism

I said above that predicate dualism might seem to have no ontological consequences, because it is concerned only with the different way things can be described within the contexts of the different sciences, not with any real difference in the things themselves. This, however, can be disputed.

 

The argument from predicate to property dualism moves in two steps, both controversial. The first claims that the irreducible special sciences, which are the sources of irreducible predicates, are not wholly objective in the way that physics is, but depend for their subject matter upon interest-relative perspectives on the world. This means that they, and the predicates special to them, depend on the existence of minds and mental states, for only minds have interest-relative perspectives. The second claim is that psychology – the science of the mental – is itself an irreducible special science, and so it, too, presupposes the existence of the mental. Mental predicates therefore presuppose the mentality that creates them: mentality cannot consist simply in the applicability of the predicates themselves.

 

First, let us consider the claim that the special sciences are not fully objective, but are interest-relative.

 

No-one would deny, of course, that the very same subject matter or ‘hunk of reality’ can be described in irreducibly different ways and it still be just that subject matter or piece of reality. A mass of matter could be characterized as a hurricane, or as a collection of chemical elements, or as mass of sub-atomic particles, and there be only the one mass of matter. But such different explanatory frameworks seem to presuppose different perspectives on that subject matter.

 

This is where basic physics, and perhaps those sciences reducible to basic physics, differ from irreducible special sciences. On a realist construal, the completed physics cuts physical reality up at its ultimate joints: any special science which is nomically strictly reducible to physics also, in virtue of this reduction, it could be argued, cuts reality at its joints, but not at its minutest ones. If scientific realism is true, a completed physics will tell one how the world is, independently of any special interest or concern: it is just how the world is. It would seem that, by contrast, a science which is not nomically reducible to physics does not take its legitimation from the underlying reality in this direct way. Rather, such a science is formed from the collaboration between, on the one hand, objective similarities in the world and, on the other, perspectives and interests of those who devise the science. The concept of hurricane is brought to bear from the perspective of creatures concerned about the weather. Creatures totally indifferent to the weather would have no reason to take the real patterns of phenomena that hurricanes share as constituting a single kind of thing. With the irreducible special sciences, there is an issue of salience , which involves a subjective component: a selection of phenomena with a certain teleology in mind is required before their structures or patterns are reified. The entities of metereology or biology are, in this respect, rather like Gestalt phenomena.

 

Even accepting this, why might it be thought that the perspectivality of the special sciences leads to a genuine property dualism in the philosophy of mind? It might seem to do so for the following reason. Having a perspective on the world, perceptual or intellectual, is a psychological state. So the irreducible special sciences presuppose the existence of mind. If one is to avoid an ontological dualism, the mind that has this perspective must be part of the physical reality on which it has its perspective. But psychology, it seems to be almost universally agreed, is one of those special sciences that is not reducible to physics, so if its subject matter is to be physical, it itself presupposes a perspective and, hence, the existence of a mind to see matter as psychological. If this mind is physical and irreducible, it presupposes mind to see it as such. We seem to be in a vicious circle or regress.

 

We can now understand the motivation for full-blown reduction. A true basic physics represents the world as it is in itself, and if the special sciences were reducible, then the existence of their ontologies would make sense as expressions of the physical, not just as ways of seeing or interpreting it. They could be understood ‘from the bottom up’, not from top down. The irreducibility of the special sciences creates no problem for the dualist, who sees the explanatory endeavor of the physical sciences as something carried on from a perspective conceptually outside of the physical world. Nor need this worry a physicalist, if he can reduce psychology, for then he could understand ‘from the bottom up’ the acts (with their internal, intentional contents) which created the irreducible ontologies of the other sciences. But psychology is one of the least likely of sciences to be reduced. If psychology cannot be reduced, this line of reasoning leads to real emergence for mental acts and hence to a real dualism for the properties those acts instantiate (Robinson 2003).

 

4.3 The Modal Argument

There is an argument, which has roots in Descartes (Meditation VI), which is a modal argument for dualism. One might put it as follows:

 

It is imaginable that one’s mind might exist without one’s body.

therefore

 

It is conceivable that one’s mind might exist without one’s body.

therefore

 

It is possible one’s mind might exist without one’s body.

therefore

 

One’s mind is a different entity from one’s body.

The rationale of the argument is a move from imaginability to real possibility. I include (2) because the notion of conceivability has one foot in the psychological camp, like imaginability, and one in the camp of pure logical possibility and therefore helps in the transition from one to the other.

 

This argument should be distinguished from a similar ‘conceivability’ argument, often known as the ‘zombie hypothesis’, which claims the imaginability and possibility of my body (or, in some forms, a body physically just like it) existing without there being any conscious states associated with it. (See, for example, Chalmers (1996), 94–9.) This latter argument, if sound, would show that conscious states were something over and above physical states. It is a different argument because the hypothesis that the unaltered body could exist without the mind is not the same as the suggestion that the mind might continue to exist without the body, nor are they trivially equivalent. The zombie argument establishes only property dualism and a property dualist might think disembodied existence inconceivable – for example, if he thought the identity of a mind through time depended on its relation to a body (e.g., Penelhum 1970).

 

Before Kripke (1972/80), the first challenge to such an argument would have concerned the move from (3) to (4). When philosophers generally believed in contingent identity, that move seemed to them invalid. But nowadays that inference is generally accepted and the issue concerns the relation between imaginability and possibility. No-one would nowadays identify the two (except, perhaps, for certain quasi-realists and anti-realists), but the view that imaginability is a solid test for possibility has been strongly defended. W. D. Hart ((1994), 266), for example, argues that no clear example has been produced such that “one can imagine that p (and tell less imaginative folk a story that enables them to imagine that p) plus a good argument that it is impossible that p. No such counterexamples have been forthcoming…” This claim is at least contentious. There seem to be good arguments that time-travel is incoherent, but every episode of Star-Trek or Doctor Who shows how one can imagine what it might be like were it possible.

 

It is worth relating the appeal to possibility in this argument to that involved in the more modest, anti-physicalist, zombie argument. The possibility of this hypothesis is also challenged, but all that is necessary for a zombie to be possible is that all and only the things that the physical sciences say about the body be true of such a creature. As the concepts involved in such sciences – e.g., neuron, cell, muscle – seem to make no reference, explicit or implicit, to their association with consciousness, and are defined in purely physical terms in the relevant science texts, there is a very powerful prima facie case for thinking that something could meet the condition of being just like them and lack any connection with consciousness. There is no parallel clear, uncontroversial and regimented account of mental concepts as a whole that fails to invoke, explicitly or implicitly, physical (e.g., behavioural) states.

 

For an analytical behaviourist the appeal to imaginability made in the argument fails, not because imagination is not a reliable guide to possibility, but because we cannot imagine such a thing, as it is a priori impossible. The impossibility of disembodiment is rather like that of time travel, because it is demonstrable a priori, though only by arguments that are controversial. The argument can only get under way for those philosophers who accept that the issue cannot be settled a priori, so the possibility of the disembodiment that we can imagine is still prima facie open.

 

A major rationale of those who think that imagination is not a safe indication of possibility, even when such possibility is not eliminable a priori, is that we can imagine that a posteriori necessities might be false – for example, that Hesperus might not be identical to Phosphorus. But if Kripke is correct, that is not a real possibility. Another way of putting this point is that there are many epistemic possibilities which are imaginable because they are epistemic possibilities, but which are not real possibilities. Richard Swinburne (1997, New Appendix C), whilst accepting this argument in general, has interesting reasons for thinking that it cannot apply in the mind-body case. He argues that in cases that involve a posteriori necessities, such as those identities that need discovering, it is because we identify those entities only by their ‘stereotypes’ (that is, by their superficial features observable by the layman) that we can be wrong about their essences. In the case of our experience of ourselves this is not true.

 

Now it is true that the essence of Hesperus cannot be discovered by a mere thought experiment. That is because what makes Hesperus Hesperus is not the stereotype, but what underlies it. But it does not follow that no one can ever have access to the essence of a substance, but must always rely for identification on a fallible stereotype. One might think that for the person him or herself, while what makes that person that person underlies what is observable to others, it does not underlie what is experienceable by that person, but is given directly in their own self-awareness.

 

This is a very appealing Cartesian intuition: my identity as the thinking thing that I am is revealed to me in consciousness, it is not something beyond the veil of consciousness. Now it could be replied to this that though I do access myself as a conscious subject, so classifying myself is rather like considering myself qua cyclist. Just as I might never have been a cyclist, I might never have been conscious, if things had gone wrong in my very early life. I am the organism, the animal, which might not have developed to the point of consciousness, and that essence as animal is not revealed to me just by introspection.

 

But there are vital differences between these cases. A cyclist is explicitly presented as a human being (or creature of some other animal species) cycling: there is no temptation to think of a cyclist as a basic kind of thing in its own right. Consciousness is not presented as a property of something, but as the subject itself. Swinburne’s claim that when we refer to ourselves we are referring to something we think we are directly aware of and not to ‘something we know not what’ that underlies our experience seemingly ‘of ourselves’ has powerful intuitive appeal and could only be overthrown by very forceful arguments. Yet, even if we are not referring primarily to a substrate, but to what is revealed in consciousness, could it not still be the case that there is a necessity stronger than causal connecting this consciousness to something physical? To consider this further we must investigate what the limits are of the possible analogy between cases of the water-H2O kind, and the mind-body relation.

 

We start from the analogy between the water stereotype – how water presents itself – and how consciousness is given first-personally to the subject. It is plausible to claim that something like water could exist without being H2O, but hardly that it could exist without some underlying nature. There is, however, no reason to deny that this underlying nature could be homogenous with its manifest nature: that is, it would seem to be possible that there is a world in which the water-like stuff is an element, as the ancients thought, and is water-like all the way down. The claim of the proponents of the dualist argument is that this latter kind of situation can be known to be true a priori in the case of the mind: that is, one can tell by introspection that it is not more-than-causally dependent on something of a radically different nature, such as a brain or body. What grounds might one have for thinking that one could tell that a priori?

 

The only general argument that seem to be available for this would be the principle that, for any two levels of discourse, A and B, they are more-than-causally connected only if one entails the other a priori. And the argument for accepting this principle would be that the relatively uncontroversial cases of a posteriori necessary connections are in fact cases in which one can argue a priori from facts about the microstructure to the manifest facts. In the case of water, for example, it would be claimed that it follows a priori that if there were something with the properties attributed to H2O by chemistry on a micro level, then that thing would possess waterish properties on a macro level. What is established a posteriori is that it is in fact H2O that underlies and explains the waterish properties round here, not something else: the sufficiency of the base – were it to obtain – to explain the phenomena, can be deduced a priori from the supposed nature of the base. This is, in effect, the argument that Chalmers uses to defend the zombie hypothesis. The suggestion is that the whole category of a posteriori more-than-causally necessary connections (often identified as a separate category of metaphysical necessity) comes to no more than this. If we accept that this is the correct account of a posteriori necessities, and also deny the analytically reductionist theories that would be necessary for a priori connections between mind and body, as conceived, for example, by the behaviourist or the functionalist, does it follow that we can tell a priori that consciousness is not more-than-causally dependent on the body?

 

It is helpful in considering this question to employ a distinction like Berkeley’s between ideas and notions. Ideas are the objects of our mental acts, and they capture transparently – ‘by way of image or likeness’ (Principles, sect. 27) – that of which they are the ideas. The self and its faculties are not the objects of our mental acts, but are captured only obliquely in the performance of its acts, and of these Berkeley says we have notions, meaning by this that what we capture of the nature of the dynamic agent does not seem to have the same transparency as what we capture as the normal objects of the agent’s mental acts. It is not necessary to become involved in Berkeley’s metaphysics in general to feel the force of the claim that the contents and internal objects of our mental acts are grasped with a lucidity that exceeds that of our grasp of the agent and the acts per se. Because of this, notions of the self perhaps have a ‘thickness’ and are permanently contestable: there seems always to be room for more dispute as to what is involved in that concept. (Though we shall see later, in 5.2.2, that there is a ‘non-thick’ way of taking the Berkeleyan concept of a notion.)

 

Because ‘thickness’ always leaves room for dispute, this is one of those cases in philosophy in which one is at the mercy of the arguments philosophers happen to think up. The conceivability argument creates a prima facie case for thinking that mind has no more than causal ontological dependence on the body. Let us assume that one rejects analytical (behaviourist or functionalist) accounts of mental predicates. Then the above arguments show that any necessary dependence of mind on body does not follow the model that applies in other scientific cases. This does not show that there may not be other reasons for believing in such dependence, for so many of the concepts in the area are still contested. For example, it might be argued that identity through time requires the kind of spatial existence that only body can give: or that the causal continuity required by a stream of consciousness cannot be a property of mere phenomena. All these might be put forward as ways of filling out those aspects of our understanding of the self that are only obliquely, not transparently, presented in self-awareness. The dualist must respond to any claim as it arises: the conceivability argument does not pre-empt them.......

5.2 The Unity of the Mind

Whether one believes that the mind is a substance or just a bundle of properties, the same challenge arises, which is to explain the nature of the unity of the immaterial mind. For the Cartesian, that means explaining how he understands the notion of immaterial substance. For the Humean, the issue is to explain the nature of the relationship between the different elements in the bundle that binds them into one thing. Neither tradition has been notably successful in this latter task: indeed, Hume, in the appendix to the Treatise, declared himself wholly mystified by the problem, rejecting his own initial solution (though quite why is not clear from the text).

plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

Elephants seals along the Central California Coast.

Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), also called an Arctic Fulmar, having an aerial argument. Image taken off the cliffs at Látrabjarg in Iceland. There are thousands of birds that occupy these cliffs.

…he knows who he is, 'cause he got two big arguments.

I took the original photo many years ago, on colour slide film, and recently played with it in photoshop !

what you are, so is your world.

the little man in side!

.....you is doing all that hell sadbad man .........THINK YOURSELF HAPPY

.

 

4 hours ov tit for tat

....wiv another writer ,not really that happy about how this one turned out and karma as already broke my camra screen....ouch ....boo hoo

25.11.14: Prior to retirement, I was an early adopter, and now I watch my $. Pulled the plug today and passed the E-M1 and 12-40 lens onto my wife, an OM shooter from way back. I am now 100% over to Sony in that the replacement will be a RX1 - I expect it to take me back to the days of shooting landscapes with the D700. The A7 Black Friday advertised prices at London Drugs intrigued me, as well as the new A7r in particular, but the Sony lens road map + $ made up my mind. I am very happy with my RX10, RX100M3 and now I will add FF to my kit - no more lens's to carry around and change as required, to say nothing about the weight and inconvenience when traveling, etc.

 

27.11.14: Henry's sent RX1 shipping notice this afternoon so sometime next Thursday via Canada Post 'Expedited' (the MegaGear "Ever Ready" Protective Dark Brown Leather Camera Case and JJC LH-LHP1 Professional Lens Hood via Amazon.ca shipped yesterday may be here tomorrow - the latter must have more pull with Canada Post?). As this is and has been my only hobby for the past 15 years, I have been fortunate enough to buy only new cameras (sealed Box) until now. I would not have made the move on the RX1 due to $, but I came across an un-boxed RX1 @ Henrys. I saved or did not spend an additional $409.00 based on the current Amazon.ca price or $823.00 based on Camera shop prices researched this week. So now I will see what a re-boxed camera looks and works like. I am good at selling my kit used (but in pristine condition), now the shoe is on the other foot :)

 

Did I mention that I already have the FDA-EVIM VF as well as spare batteries (M3)! Just have to now sell some kit for the Nissin i40. On the other hand I rarely use a flash, and this camera is so good in low light, the built-in flash will do in a pinch.

 

28.11.14:

 

www.onemorelens.com/2013/12/how-rx1-made-photographer-out...

 

www.flickr.com/photos/justinwkern/8634159686/

 

Been there, done that re record button...

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer...

 

www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_rx1r.shtml

 

A good argument for a 5yr Sony extended warranty?

blog.photoshelter.com/2014/02/sony-rx1-review-one-year-la...

 

The MegaGear case was delivered this afternoon. The so called built-in grip looks to me to be too small and slippery due to the leather (will have to consider attaching a small non-slip patch). For $29 it appears to be well built, but we will see how the cam fits in it. Just bought a 600x 64gb sd card from Amazon.ca for $44.

 

www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx1/sony-rx1A.HTM

 

duncandavidson.com/gear/sony/rx1/

 

www.gearophile.com/cameras/camera-reviews/sony-rx1.html

 

2.12.14: Canada Post Expedited beat their estimate by 2 days and delivered today, which leaves me with perhaps a day and a half of sunny skies before the rain start again.

 

Unboxed it was, but no signs of use that I could see, and everything in working order so far. First interior low light shots and zoomed-in-camera where impressive in their detail. My wife is usually my first subject with a new camera, and she was not impressed with the detail (too much) :-).

 

3.12.14: Inside most of the day, but got low light interior shots that confirmed numerous reviewer opinions. I shoot raw/jpeg and both shots in some instances appeared to me to have in camera NR applied in excess of the low option ( admittedly pixel peeping) [4.12.14 Checked settings and found Soft Skin Effect on]. I also noticed that the speaker is located at the base of the camera, and if one is using a leather

case as I am, replaying videos may require earbuds. I also found focus hunting sometimes where the M3 and the RX10 might not.

 

5.12.14: The Sony ECM-XYST1M Stereo Microphone (I use it on the RX10) is not supported by this cam.

 

7.12.14: Learning curve for me with this cam, as well in terms of Sony Memory, Display and Function modes. Message on screen re Macro mode on ( while manual focusing ) indicates to me that I will have to be careful in that mode. Tried out Smart Telecon and Zoom ( in JPEG only ) - more than likely not something I will use as I shoot raw. What no WiFi? Forgot this cam is 2012 vintage.

 

Partially cloudy today, so off to shoot some landscapes.

 

8.12.14: The following review by TechnoGut from MetroWest in Massachusetts, pretty much covers my experience with this cam so far:

 

"An absolutely unique photographic tool w/out peer

February 8, 2013

If you managed to get this far through all the reviews of the camera, you're either a glutton for punishment, are you really are a researcher and aficionado of high-end digital photography. Let's assume it's the latter and get to the really interesting stuff.

This camera is in a class of one. There's really nothing like it anywhere in the marketplace. It's absurdly expensive for a point-and-shoot, and yet it takes pictures that rival and in some cases exceed in overall quality what some of the very best full frame pro cameras are capable of generating . . . . . while fitting fairly comfortably in your jacket pocket. It looks like your neighbor's point-and-shoot $350 Canon, but costs more than your last vacation. It doesn't even have a viewfinder, either optical or electronic - although you can get a great electronic one, if you don't mind being soaked for another $450 on top of what you've already shelled out for this absurdly expensive but marvelous piece of technology. Or you can really get hosed completely by Zeiss, and get an optical viewfinder for another $650 - easily the most overpriced accessory in digital photography. It isn't the fastest focusing, and it requires you to move closer or farther to get the shot that you want instead of zooming in or out given the fixed focal length lens. It can be both maddening to use and at the same time . . . a breeze to use like any other point-and-shoot.

It's like nothing else really. Its high ISO performance is equal to anything and I do mean anything out there. It's capable of taking very low noise images at ISO 6400, and with a little bit of cleanup and working in RAW, you can easily salvage high quality pictures at ISO 12,800 with lots of detail and very little loss of information due to noise. Overall, the camera is something of a walking contradiction in terms in many ways, and at the same time, it's a camera that's capable of inspiring enormous loyalty and probably will generate a truly cult-like following, while many other people may simply shake their heads at what they see as Sony's foolishness.

Pros:

1) As good high ISO as virtually any full frame camera (with the possible exception of the Canon 1 Dx, Nikon D4 and D600 - and, at worst, it is very close to those benchmark systems in terms of low light ability - at best it is equal to any of them).

2) Capable of remarkable detail due to its 24 megapixel full frame sensor with excellent color and dynamic range. DxO sensor score of 93.

3) High quality Zeiss 35mm F 2.0 fixed lens that is sharp edge-to-edge (which for FF camera might cost $1200 or so by itself).

4) Intuitive but deep operating system and menu structures, immediately familiar to those coming from Sony Alpha background. Easy to run as full manual camera . . . or put on full AUTO, and all shades in between. Good aperture priority mode operation (my personal fav).

5) Capable of shooting 1080 at 60p and taking excellent videos in low light, and with full IS (image stabilization).

6) Remarkable compactness and portability for such enormous low light capabilities w/full frame sensor - an engineering tour de force in terms of cramming full frame capabilities into a point-and-shoot size and form factor (achievable only with a fixed lens).

7) Macro functionality in CZ lens.

8) Customizable buttons and other nice user config operating system features.

9) Crop/zoom functionality of x1.4 and x2.0 partially mitigates fixed lens restrictions (equivalent to 50 and 70 mm lens but with obvious loss of resolution).

10) High build quality w/ nice magnesium chassis - has very solid feel (it ought to for this much $!).

11) Decent flash.

Cons:

1) Price.

2) Fixed focal length lens means extra work to get the shot properly framed - and forget about shooting subjects at a distance.

3) Tendency to underexpose one half to one third exposure value - why can't Sony for this much money get exposure values locked in?

4) Problems with focus lock in low light - mostly a standard contrast detection focus issue (but for example OM5 does better job). Fixable in firmware updates perhaps?

5) Likelihood of (or at least possibility of) planned obsolescence, as Sony may release a zoom lens version sometime in the next three years.

6) More than disappointing that Sony did not include an electronic viewfinder as standard equipment at this price.

7) Poor thumb grip with not enough contour - not easy to hold onto the camera with one hand.

8) No IS for stills - given that this is always sensor-based in Sony systems, not sure why omitted (hi ISO performance?).

9) Sony STILL hasn't made viewing photos and videos in any kind of alternating fashion easy - must surf menus or shoot video to get easy viewing access to videos on card.

10) Poor battery life. Must carry two batteries.

11) Lens zoom and crop functionality not available if shooting in RAW.

12) Flash has really modest output and no bounce functionality.

Having more cons than pros doesn't mean that I don't like/love this camera. I'm a bit stunned by its capabilities on the one hand, and frustrated with its limitations on the other, but it's obvious that what makes it so remarkable actually locks in some of its limitations. You simply couldn't get this compact form factor with an EVF and even a 3x zoom lens. The lens alone would be huge, and this Zeiss lens itself is an engineering marvel, in terms of how small it really is for a FF sensor 2.0 lens. In the end, it's all about image quality, and here, both in stills and video, there is very little to complain about. And if you take this instead of your huge DSLR and bag of lenses, just because it's so damned convenient, isn't that the strongest endorsement you can make? I find that I am transitioning away from a very favorite Sony A65 as my default camera, just because this is so easy to carry.

I'm still exploring the performance envelope of the RX-1, and will update this review as I go. It's a remarkable camera by any standard, and perhaps the most INTERESTING camera that has been made in the last 10 years, with the possible exception of the SLTs made also by Sony. Suggests that Sony is thinking outside the box and more creatively than anyone else.Hide" [store.sony.com/cyber-shot-rx1]."

 

It says something about this camera, that crossing over from the E-M1 and it's very good IS, I am getting pretty much the same ratio of sharp shots, and I will be 70 next year! The latter does not necessarily mean that my hands are not that steady now, but it is a factor.

 

9.11.14: One thing about accumulating camera bags over the years is that one can sometimes find one that will fit a new cam. In this case I found a roots that will fit the RX1 with the VF attached. When the hood finally arrives, it may not.

 

12.12.14: Finally got some fair weather shooting this morning, as well as some interior grand kid shots. I also revisited some of my D700 shots, I am back to FF and very happy!

 

11.12.14: We know that unlike the M3/M4, the flash will not flip back in order to bounce ( I find this very handy ), I have tried some options and achieved a partial angled bounce, but with a bit too much fiddling. More experimenting.

 

14.12.14: Sony soft skin effect in video face detect mode M3 issues

www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3700520

  

17.12.14: Fotodiox Pro, All Metal Black Camera Hand Grip for Sony DSC-RX1 Cyber-Shot Digital Camera with Battery Access ( speaker covered ) delivered today. Good fit and blends in well. Grip has a smooth surface, I would prefer non-slip.

 

19.12.14: In between showers I went for a walk this morning and shot some landscape and grand-kid shots. A few keepers, but shooting in Program mode and flixible spot (my error) I did not get many in focus. Auto, on the other hand got some good in focus shots of the 2 year olds. This camera has a learning curve for shooters like me, so I had better get with it.

 

20.12.14: The JJC LH-LHP1 Professional Lens Hood for Sony DSC-RX1 Digital Camera Replaces Sony LHP-1 finally arrived today and fits very well. I will check out filter options in the new year (ND and CircPol) in terms of fit and the Sony cap attaching properly. Although some users are of the opinion that using any filters on this lens was not what Sony engineers had in mind. By the way re the hand grip, it may provide access to the battery and SD card, but if I had trouble getting the card out, anyone with bigger hands may not get it out without tweezers of some kind.

 

22.12.14: I gave this cam it's first real workout this evening. We went out to the Butchard Gardens with the grand-kids to take in the Holiday lighting. Right up front, 90% of my shooting is in Program mode - and I am happy with the keepers (in the 70's when I shot with a Pentax Spotmatic we did not have 30000+ algorithms programmed into the camera as they do now). I used a monopod for all shots, alternating between Program mode and Auto/Scene modes. Even though the front dial was set at AF, I had trouble with the cam going into TRACKING FOCUS mode (Auto and Scene), and by the time I figured it out ( it is dark, lots of lighting and scenery, and grand-kids and their parents getting lost in the crowds) many of my shots were out of focus. Focusing with this cam in poor lighting conditions is a problem for me so far, in that both the M3 and RX10 are better in that department. The difference between sensors (M3 and RX1) is very noticeable shooting in the dark as I was, and those shots that were in focus were very good 6400 ISO, less so at 25,000 ISO ( as Auto and Scene seem to default to ). Also, battery power lasted less than two hours or about 200 shots, and I had two extra with me just in case.

 

24.12.14: Took a gamble that the Larmor LCD Screen Protector for the RX100 series would fit on both this camera and the RX10. Applied today, no problem.

 

27.12.14: Upland Park Garry Oak Eco System.

First hour of good weather outing with the RX1 (weather systems were coming in hard and fast). Finally, some landscape shooting with this FF camera! No problems with focusing, although I had to adapt when shooting the kids, but still got a good percentage of keepers. Blown away by this sensor and the camera's portability (compared to the D700 or E-M1).

 

29.12.14: After reviewing my first RX1 posted shots, I have decided that to do the camera justice, I should upload a larger file than I usually do. Limited to a fixed lens I have to plan the shot in terms of distance and what it is I want to capture. Not a problem with the M3 or RX10, but something that I will have to keep in mind for my travels.

 

5.01.15: Ended up buying a 49mm circ Pol from Sony Store (15% off re purchase of RX1) and had to pick it up from Purolator today (not impressed with Sony's so called tracking option).

 

A first time for me, I decided to take one RX1 shot a day for this year, if for no other reason than the project will push me to learn the camera, as well as think about shots other than landscapes, seascapes or macros.

 

9.01.15: Last night I was tempted to take the E-M1 to shoot our twin grand-daughter's 2nd birthday and all the mayhem that entails, but opted for the RX1 and the Rx100M3. I stuck with the RX1 and used the Spd Priority Cont mode (Focus and exposure fixed from the first shot - I should have remembered the latter) and face Detection on, for the most part. The E-M1 would have done far better with respect to focusing, but less so with noise. The RX1 in program mode shot mostly at 6400 with some 3200 shots. Had the focusing been up to par I would have had many keepers, as it is, there were more than enough to keep me happy. The M3 was used for a few shots because the focusing was faster.

 

Processing the above shots (as well as previous shoots) in Capture One 8 I (switched from both Aperture 3.6 and LR 5.0) I found all indoor shots warmer than I like, but other than that, speedier rendition than with both the other options, and not much more processing required.

 

19.01.14: Yesterday we had a series of heavy rain and wind (up 95k gusts) storms pass through our area, but our kids held a birthday picnic at a local secluded park for their twins 2 year olds anyway. We showed up, my wife with the E-M1 and I had the RX2. E-M1 when raining and the RX1 when not. Although slower in focusing, I had some keepers of parents trying to get the toddlers organized for a group photo, and the toddlers on their own as a group.

 

29.01.15: Interesting re switching from Aperture to C1:

www.phaseone.com/Imaging-Software/Capture-One/Testimonial...

 

30.01.15: Catching up with backing up cards. With the video which is found in the Private file, I use Aunsoft Panasonic AVCHD Convertor Pro to convert and/or merge. This is where I find that issue with the location of the record button is a problem for me. About half of the clips were due to my thumb hitting the record button - solved in the menu by assigning to the movie mode only option.

 

2.03.15: 2.03.15: So that now that I can travel camera 'light' (RX100M3, RX1 and/or RX10) I am preparing for a trip next month. I have traveled the area in question several times, and photo ops, at least for me, will be far fewer, unless I am testing the cams vs the E-M1+12-40mm/f2.8 and XZ-2 combo last time. I should be taking only one, but the RX100M3 and RX1 would do just fine, but the RX10 with it's zoom would also come in handy. Decisions, decision......

 

7.04.15: RX1 and RX100m3 it will be.

 

4.05.15: Finally back with a nasty case of bronchitis (which I attribute to the passengers getting on in San Diego for a 4 day cruise to Vancouver). The RX1 was with me most of the time while on shore except for snorkelling or what I considered not to secure areas. For instance we took a tour to La Antigua Guatemala and I had the RX1. RX100M3 and iPhone6+. High noon sun, but that is the way these tours off of cruise ships work of necessity. Back on board shots were reviewed on my iPad Air 2 and cards backed up to a small portable HD. I found the iPhone 6+ to be on me most of the time, while post processing and uploading to Flickr was a lark. Back home, I now get to review 3 weeks worth of shots.

 

My wife opted to take my RX10 instead of the OMD-E-M1 , and I think that will become permanent. I missed the versatility of the RX10 for travelling, so if a RX20 shows up, I guess the E-M1 is on it's way out.

 

14.05.15: One complaint from wife, which I heard often, was the slow zoom, so it appears that am getting the RX10 back and she will stick with the E-M1.

 

14.06.15: While travelling I found that I posted most shots to Flickr from the iPhone 6+ and a few RX1 shots from the iPad.

 

Most of my shooting was done with the RX1 (with VF) and the 100m3 for long shots. Although, an RX1 crop was pretty near the equivalent IMO. I have just about completed this trip's culling and PP. Am I happy to be back agin into FF shooting!

 

The short of it for me is: The RX1 for most of my type of shooting, the RX100M3 for interiors and for pocket only, and the RX10 for all around shooting ( although no where near as fast and stabilized as the E-M1 - I rarely need either option).

 

6.08.15: www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3847564.

 

3.10.15: Ordered the Nissan i40 Flash from B&H the last day before they closed for a week, so no delivery until around the 14th.

 

7.10.15: Shipped today.

 

15.10.15: i40 received today, charging batteries (contrary to what I read in a forum it does take rechargeable batteries).

Initial impression: just the size I would want for this cam and the RX10M2, swivel and bounce options, in one very compact 4 battery unit. However, I would not care to drop it, or remove it out of the shoe other than gently.

 

24.12.15: I do not often use a flash, but usually do at family gatherings, and did at last few this season (so far). This cam, for me, is more suited for my landscape and portrait photography than for these gatherings. The RX1`00M4 has proven to be the best so far (although I plan to try out the RX10M2 and flash today).

 

1.01.16: Found a Roots (CSC System) bag on sale @ London Drugs which fit this cam, the VF and the Nissin i40, along with pockets (albeit tight) for cards,extra battery and circ polarizer.

 

25.04.16: Early Spring with warmer than normal temps and travel plans. Have not made up my mind on what cams I will be taking to Alaska (7 day cruise). The RX10M2 would seem to be ideal, but so would the RX1 along with the 100m4. The vagaries of the weather (as experienced on previous trips) means that the DMZ-TS5 will be in my pocket. I can take more than one cam as flying is not necessary :). Ditto when RVing in B.C and Alberta.

 

3.06.16: Reviewing shots taken with this cam and the RX100M4. RX1 Landscapes and portraits really stand out (not surprisingly) when compared to the M4 (the latter is no slouch though).

 

vimeo.com/116692462

 

8.07.16: One decent rose in my garden, and I had to compare shots with the RX10M3. Although not in the same league as my long since sold macro lenses, I am happy with both shots.

 

15.01.17: A note the bags I am using with this cam:

1. Roots RHM 090: Tight but will fit the camera, VF, i40 flash, 2 filters and two cards. Tight for the sling strap ( have a smaller sling strap for this cam and a larger sling for the RX10m3). Again the straps that come with this bag are easy to change over.

2. Roots 73: Will fit the camera and VF along with a hand strap. No space for my sling strap, but the roots bag strap is easy to unclip and clip on to split key rings.

 

22.02.17: For backpacking I have a Optech USA soft pouch which will fit both the camera and VF.

 

Sample shots @:

Sony DSC-RX1 - My Notes + sample shots @ :

www.flickr.com/photos/om44pomch9/albums/72157649062166708...

 

16.09.18: Debating wether or not to sell this cam and upgrade to the a7iii with a 24-105 f/4 lens. I find that, at my age, I have to use a tripod most of the time (while I have the RX10M4 hanging off my shoulder/neck). The two together weigh more than the new combo by my calculations. We shall see, later than sooner, as the pre-orders lists are lengthy.

 

24.09.18: RX1 for sale and the A7RIII + 55 f1.8 has been shipped.

 

25.09.18: I may try to convince my wife to use this camera.

 

30.09.18: A7Riii returned along with the 55mm f/1.8.

Going in I was aware of the large files, but not to the extent it would slow down my workflow. Really liked the VF and LCD. Now waiting for the A7III and 24-105mm f/4.0. For now I will keep the RX1 with it's fixed 35mm f/2.0 - lens alone is worth the resale value of the RX1.

 

4.10.17: Opted for great glass Sony 35mm f1.4 and A7ii ($1,100.00 savings over A7iii). Selling RX1 + kit.

 

11.02.19: Kept the RX1 for its 2.0 lens, Full Frame and it is unobtrusive.

 

Processing: Changed from Aperture to Lightroom 6 and then to Capture One( several years before their conversion to the 'Cloud' as Sony colours and processing were/was better in my opinion). C1's annual upgrade fee doubled in the last year so I opted for Capture One Sony instead. I have copies of both Luminar 3 (I prefer the latter to ON1, and ON1 (I really thought that ON1 would replace Lightroom for me), but Raw shots had colour fringing while the otter apps did not, so I am sticking with C1 Sony for my Catalog, while processing as needed with Luminar 3 and Aurora 19 (more so than with Topaz).

 

www.flickr.com/photos/justinwkern/11593358096/in/photolis...

 

28.07.19: Decision time fast approaching, whether to travel ( by air & sea ) with the ILCE-7M2 & 24-105 (f/4.0 - heavy) or the RX1 [f/2.0 - light] - ( along with the RX100V [24-70 f/1.8] & iPhone Xs Max [f/1.8) + Moment 18mm lens. Either way both cams have Peak Design straps, as well, I will attach a Peak Design Cuff.

 

17.08.19: After much back and forth, settled on less weight and bulk. RX1 it is for this trip.

 

15.09.19: Regreted somewhat not taking the ILCE-7M2. The RX1 viewfinder kept falling off in crowded conditions, tour buses, security etc..

 

8.09.20: Camped up island over the long labour day weekend. I wavered between traveling with the new (for me) iPhone 11 Max Pro + Moment lenses alone or also with the RX1. The RX1 won out, and did not disappoint (as usual). Processed the latter's shots first, and now the iPhone will be reviewed.

 

20.01.22: Planning to RV this year (the Island, B.C. Interior and Alberta's National Parks. My planned kit will be the Tamron 70-300, RX1, and the 24-100. The iPhone 12 Pro Max is always with me.

 

Sony version updates, nowhere near as convenient as Olympus - IMO. RX1 remains on version 1.0. Tried to update the ILCE-7M3, and the roadblock this time, is the latest Apple Mac OS Monterey. Wonder how long it will take them to update?

 

27.03.22: Updated. Next RX 1 & any lens updates.

 

Lens creep: re-reading some of me earlier notes - RX 1 solo & no other lenses required. Well that did not last long did it!

What would we do without them !

 

Underneith are our trees from the two Christmases past .

 

Some don't believe in decorating a tree,and that's ok,I have

no argument with them.

But the cross of Calvary was made from a tree,and I celebrate that fact.

 

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree... 1st Peter 2:24 The Holy Bible

Este sería el primer libro de una trilogía que espero poder completar esta semana. El argumento del libro es libre, que cada uno imagine su historia, eso si, con un final feliz, eh?

 

Para Lío de Fotos: Lecturas de verano

7DOS, Week #3 - About Me, Abstract Thursday - Another one from my (recent) archives and again taken for an ODC challenge.

 

I had an idea in mind, but the execution was too time-consuming considering we're on holiday, and so decided to use this as it represents complexity in some ways. Like my fellow 7DOS member, Sue www.flickr.com/photos/suerobertsnl/ , I am an eternal ex-pat. I don't live in my country of origin and have spent more years living in one foreign culture after the other than I can keep track of these days. It's exciting, but it always requires more effort than you imagine, looking in from the outside, as you have to work to get to know a place, deal with local beauracracy, make friends and adapt to (and even adopt) aspects of the place that is home-for-now, only to have to move on again after a period of time. This is an accident of fate rather than a consciously made decision, on my part at any rate, although there is the argument that nothing is an accident and that our choices determine where we go and what we do in our lives, even if we're not consciously deciding at the time.

I have lived in 7 countries and visited many more, although I've not yet made it to Asia or the USA. I speak 2 languages fluently and 2 more to a functional level (and have picked up and forgotten 2 others along the way). Our little family of Nomads is what is known as a third culture family: typically this is a situation where the parents are from one culture, the child/children are born in another and the family, as a rule, live in a third; in our case, we were all born in different countries and have lived in many more since LG was born 9 years ago.

The list goes on and on… it is an experience that offers us many wonderful and unique experiences, as well as regular challenges. We are fortunate in that it gives us the chance to properly experience cultures different to our own, but at the same time we are increasingly rootless; the inevitable social question "So, where are you from?" is a one for which Mr Nomad and I have a short, cut-off-questions-before-they-start answer and a longer you-really-want-to-know? answer :-) One of the reasons, by the way, that we return to Italy for our summer break is that it's the place in which we've spent the most time as a family and where each of us feels most at home.

 

ODC - Light It Up Blue (originally shot for this challenge in April 2014)

 

Part of a massive chandelier in a local shopping mall - seemed apt for today's challenge set by Laurama www.flickr.com/photos/47181226@N05/ in aid of Light It Up Blue - "… a worldwide movement with a mission to raise awareness for autism. April 2 is a World Autism Day and continues through the month of April. Many iconic landmarks, hotels, sporting venues, museums, bridges and stores will participate by lighting up with blue lights. I know the Empire State Building in New York City will be lit blue for this cause. If there are any places local to you participating in Light it up Blue you may be able to capture these lights."

 

You can also find me at www.facebook.com/LyndaHPhotography

It was taken in an early morning under a bridge, inside a flower market of Howrah, India, the biggest flower market in Asia. This place had a good light here. So, I waited for pictures with some of my friends. While taking a few, I found myself in front of two people having some arguments over some matter and they did not notice me at all, I guess. I found the scene intriguing with the person in foreground in dark and how it was directing naturally towards the person in the middle and I liked the other person’s expression even more. I placed myself quietly towards them and clicked one photograph and left the spot almost immediately and stood at a distance! It was quite fun for me as well as challenging regarding their reaction if they spotted me!

mit Argumentationsverstärker

with argumentation booster

avec exhausteur d'argumentation

met argumentatieversterker

 

Strobist Info:

Jinbei DM-5 in Octacox camera left

YN560-iii from top

YN560-iii through background

 

FYI: no one was hurt during this shooting. She's a wonderful woman with an wonderful sense of humour.

Sea lions Kangaroo island

Oh boy. Last minute I was nearly possessed by some thick, black spikes that nearly hurt my lungs. Now this. How long is this argument gonna be? Technically I’m the one with anger issues, not because I’m a dwarf, but I have them.

 

Sean: “You put a fucking tracker to me, Flor? What is that all about?”

Florence: “Keeping an eye out. I dragged Callan all the way from Sheffield to here. But he doesn’t know a damn thing.”

Callan: “My family’s fucking dead, alright, peace out. But if it wasn’t for your teammate Strymir, I’ve seen better Scandinavians who have a better oath to keep than your puny little shitholes.”

Luc: “Are you calling me out on my friend? Just because you’re rich, doesn’t give you that right, you wanker.”

Callan: “Well try me then, you cunt.”

 

Terry: “Hey guys, I…well, everyone, shut the fuck up. Shouldn’t we be going after some lost book? I really don’t need both teams arguing at the same time.

Edris: “I don’t get all this mess I signed up for right now. I just lost my teacher—our closest teammate and why the fuck are we still around the Louvre?

Luc: “…”

Sean: “She’s right. I just lost my friend to these fucking shenanigans. If I weren’t up for this job, I would still be prosecuting people for shit.”

Callan: “Would he be deemed guilty?”

Sean: “Can’t let my personal feelings get in the way considered my lady is in their hands…but fuck this, we’ll talk about the rest later, Florence. Now let’s go.”

 

***

 

Luc’s group teleportation ability worked like a charm. Didn’t mean it like a pun, but sure. Magnus disabled it right the amulets when he left. My head’s really fizzy from the the last “Serpent” fucker who tried to…take control. The experience was awful, or else I would have gutted him with the axe when I could move.

 

This is already the 50th painting of the Mona Lisa hung on the Louvre, the original is still somewhere. No time to clean up messes even if I’m a good builder from my genes. But a book is a book, this Malison…it feels like a series. I’ve been asked in the past to polish and make changes to keep the book from deteriorating, but now I kinda regret it—

 

Prez: “The skies are getting even darker. We’re reaching eclipse soon, very soon. I believe the Pont des Arts is going to be overtaken by demons any minute.”

Terry: “Any indication of whatever the hell these demons come from?”

Luc: “Theoretically, I don’t know. They seem mutated. Sean, can you confirm?”

Sean: “Guess so...the needles didn’t look very unnatural. Let’s split up.”

Edris: “We can’t, can we?”

Luc: “Not likely. We stick together right fucking now, ok?

Florence: “Also gimme a moment lads, lemme try finding out what the old man knows…him and Forge

Everyone: “Aight.”

 

While Florence is busy on comms, the others help load up her car with tons of weapons that I presume it can be used later since we did waste a lot of ammo. I’ve had a quick chat with her on blacksmiths and crafting, which she is fond of. Now we’re both on the law with a former officer, ironic. I bet it would even be terrible considering there is no organization we can reach right now. The one in Germany is slaughtered, Asia…fallen, America…same.

 

It isn’t long until the streets are rampant with fire again, by the sudden wave of demons who reach up from both sides as we are still prepping. I grab my rifle and start shooting at three coming at my 7, while my right hand grabs the axe and slices a crawler that nearly tried to latch onto my face.

 

Florence: “They think we’re here for the book! We have to go right now! These weapons are best saved later.”

Edris: “What do you have, a fairy killer?”

Florence: “No, it’d be too big for a doomsday device—I tailored the cannon. Like a fucking sea pirate.”

Prez: “Goddamn.”

 

With no time to waste besides on admiring on her crafting for a second, she grabs a rocket launcher from the trunk, as she casts a spell that translates to “rage” in Latin, and fires it directly into the ugly bunch, second wave. Luc helps with casting a mist so that we could escape to the roof. Sean climbs throws a couple of enchanted knives at a couple heads before it gets redirected back at him.

 

I shoot a couple more rounds along with my axe, since it does fit with the rifle. A great modpon.

 

Edris: “The dust ain’t gonna hold off longer…and neither will Terry, we’re gonna be drained by the end of the day…is it gonna start, Callan?”

Callan: “Yes I’m working on it…”

Prez: “Get it done, now!”

Callan: “Alright…here we go…the coordinates are good thanks to you Cap’n…boom!”

 

And with a quick flash, we all disappear along with the Aston Martin before the demons can even reach us, with my head only remembering dropping one of my grenades for the demon army.

She had have a argument with some friends and was soo sad.

Plymouth Citybus 2442 stands at Helston in Coinagehall St with a route 39 from Camborne I think. Cornwall is the centre groups for the old argument for clear, obvious route branding verses a clear, uniform network - it will be interesting to see how it develops.

Please Right Click and select "Open link in new

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

 

The Argument - Monty Python

 

no, it's not about a parrot

 

Best viewed LARGE on Black: bighugelabs.com/flickr/onblack.php?id=3462259502&size...

 

St. George Slays the Dragon - Taken in the Village Church in Fenny Bentley on the Tissington Trail in Derbyshire.

 

From the Wikipedia Article: "St George's Day is celebrated by the several nations, kingdoms, countries, and cities of which Saint George is the patron saint. St George's Day is also England's National Day. Most countries which observe St George's Day celebrate it on April 23, the traditionally accepted date of Saint George's death in 303 AD.

 

St George's Day was a major feast and national holiday in England on a par with Christmas from the early 15th century. However, this tradition had waned by the end of the 18th century after the union of England and Scotland. In recent years the popularity of St George's Day appears to be increasing gradually. BBC Radio 3 had a full programme of St George's Day events in 2006, and Andrew Rosindell, Conservative MP for Romford, has been putting the argument forward in the House of Commons to make St George's Day a public holiday. Although Saint George is the Patron Saint of England, it is believed that St George was not English and it is not certain that he ever visited England, although legend has it that St George was born in Coventry at Caludon Castle in Wyken, though some say he was born in Cappadocia, an area which is now in Turkey"

 

Close to the town of Ashbourne, Fenny Bentley is a picturesque little village consisting of little more than a school, a pub and the church of St Edmunds possibly dating as far back as the 14th century. The church has an alabaster tomb of the Beresford family. Sir Thomas Beresford had fought at the Battle of Agincourt.

 

www.derbyshireuk.net/fenny.html

 

www.ashbournechurches.org/FennyBentley.htm

 

 

"The Tissington Trail is a bridleway and walk/cycle path in Derbyshire, England. Opened in 1971, and now a part of the National Cycle Network, it runs for 13 miles (21 km) from Parsley Hay in the north to Ashbourne in the south, along part of the trackbed of the former railway line connecting Ashbourne to Buxton. It takes its name from the village of Tissington, which it skirts."

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissington_Trail

 

www.derbyshire-peakdistrict.co.uk/tissingtontrail.htm

Two Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) having an aerial argument over the creek that feeds Herring Cove south of Ketchikan, Alaska.

A Picture Everyday: 42

 

Today I was up at 6am to catch up the sunrise light. Cold and rainy day though. Sky was all grey from where I was. But from my window I could see that in the east, where the sun rises, the clouds were a bit more fragmented, so I went to the beach cause it was the only place I could actually catch some good pictures. By the time I got there it really opened up for a second. 10 minutes later sky was all grey again.

 

If you see close enough, around that "fire ball" it totally looks like the profile of 2 faces argueing with a weird little creature. The first looks a person, the second looks a disfigurated skull. Tell me if you can see it or otherwise I might do a little sketch over on a close up because it's pretty cool.

It's easy to pick holes in the legend of Thomas the Rhymer. Many of the references to him and his predictions were written centuries after his death, but folklore is not necessarily unreliable just because it's verbal, and there's a good argument that in this case, where there's smoke there may once have been fire!

 

The problem is that the historical reality of True Thomas has been almost completely submerged in the tidal wave of myth and legend that has grown up around him over the centuries since. While it seems reasonable to dismiss the story that he "disappeared for seven years to live with the Queen of Elfland and returned to Ercildoune with the gift of prophecy", there are plenty of predictions attributed to him that may either be genuine or may have contained some degree of truth.

 

Popular lore recounts that he prophesied some of the great events in Scottish history, including the death of Alexander III of Scotland in 1286. He is said to have told the Earl of Dunbar:

 

"On the morrow, afore noon, shall blow the greatest wind that ever was heard before in Scotland."

 

There having been no significant change in the weather by the time his lordship sat down for his lunch the following day, a "please explain" was sent to Thomas, who replied that the appointed hour had not yet come, shortly after which, news arrived from Fife of the king's death.

 

Another of the Rhymer's predictions is said to go like this:

 

"When the Yowes o' Gowrie come to land,

The Day o' Judgment's near at hand"

 

A "Yowe" in the country parts of Scotland, is a ewe and the Yowes of Gowrie were two large rounded ovine looking rocks in the Tay estuary, just off the shore from Invergowrie, close to the outlet of the Fowlis Burn. Why and how should two large rocks ever come ashore you might well wonder? Well they had been observed over a period of many years to be getting slowly but surely closer to the shoreline! Or to be more precise, the shoreline was getting closer to them! Then in the 19th century they finally did come ashore. The Dundee to Perth railway line was built along that part of the coast line, seemingly just offshore of the yowes, after which the area to landward of the railway was used as a rubbish dump - supposedly burying the yowes in the process. So technically the yowes have "come to land", without triggering the Day of Judgement, although there are parts of Dundee where it probably can't come soon enough!

 

Perhaps my favourite of the Rhymer's prophecies, concerns Fyvie Castle in Aberdeenshire. He is said to have said:

 

"Fyvie, Fyvie thou'se never thrive,

lang's there's in thee stanes three :

There's ane intill the highest tower,

There's ane intill the ladye's bower,

There's ane aneath the water-yett,

And thir three stanes ye'se never get."

 

What does that mean when translated loosely into understandable English?

 

It is believed that there were three special stones at Fyvie - weeping stones. They remained permanently damp, whatever the weather and the whereabouts of two of them are unknown. The Rhymer's prediction is interpreted as meaning that until all three were located, no eldest son would succeed to his father at Fyvie. The 'Ladye's bower' is the castle's charter room, and the one surviving stone is kept there to this day. Whether there is another one built into the castles 'highest tower', nobody seems to know, but the biggest problem is the one said to be underneath the water-gate. This would place it in the River Ythan, which runs around the castle, and trying to identify a damp stone is a river is of course a difficult task!

 

So what about the prediction, that no oldest son would inherit? I have known this story, without questioning it, for most of my life, having been solemnly told that indeed, no eldest son had ever inherited the castle. But in the interests of science, I though I would spend some time now trying to find out whether that's true!

 

Fyvie was originally (before the time of the Rhymer a royal castle. We know that King Alexander II signed charters here in February 1222 and The Bruce stayed here in the early years of the 14th century. Since then, it has been owned by five families - the Prestons, the Meldrums, the Setons, the Gordons and the Forbes-Leiths.

 

Actually, technically, there were six families! In 1370, King Robert II granted Fyvie to his son and heir John (later Robert III), who in turn passed the castle to his cousin, Sir James Lindsay. However, in 1388 the Scots had a rare victory over the English at the Battle of Otterburn, during which Ralph de Percy was captured by Sir Henry Preston, the brother-in-law of Sir James Lindsay. When Robert III came to the throne two years later in 1390 he purchased the rights to Ralph de Percy's ransom by transferring ownership of Fyvie Castle from Sir James Lindsay to Sir Henry Preston. This would seem rather unfair, although I imagine Sir James would have been adequately compensated, but it does of course set the prophesy off in the right direction - Sir James' heir never inherited Fyvie!

 

So leaving Sir James Lyndsay to one side, the first effective owner of Fyvie in the post royal era, was Sir Henry Preston. When he died around the year 1433, he wasn't succeeded by his son, because he didn't have any! Fyvie went to Sir Alexander Meldrum of that ilk, who had married one of Sir Henry's two daughters.

 

Fyvie remained in the hands of the Meldrums for about 160 years, passing through the hands of several (probably five) generations of the family, but as we don't know the genealogy of this part of the Meldrum family, we can't say whether an eldest son ever inherited. Probably yes, but the accuracy of the prophesy can't be disproved! In 1596, Fyvie was sold by the Meldrums to Alexander Seton, later Chancellor of Scotland.

 

Alexander Seton, 1st Earl of Dunfermline and Chancellor of Scotland, was born in 1555. His first wife, to whom he was already married when he bought Fyvie, was Lillias Drummond and after producing five children for him, all girls, it is said that Lord Seton, blaming his wife for the lack of a son and heir, began an affair with her cousin (and future wife) Grizel Leslie. Betrayed and heartbroken Lillias died not long after learning of the affair, .

 

Lillias Drummond died in May 1601 and Lord Seton married Grizel Leslie a few months later in October 1601. On their wedding night at Fyvie it is said that they were both distracted by a 'mournful moaning' from outside their bedroom window. A search for the source of the noises produced no results but the next morning the words D. LILLIAS DRUMMOND were found carved into the stone sill outside their bedroom window, in letters three inches high and upside down, the window being over 50 feet above ground level. The letters remain visible to this day and since that time, Fyvie Castle is said to have been haunted by a lady in green, roaming the corridors of the castle, crying at her betrayal by her husband and leaving behind the scent of Rose petals!

 

How much of that is true, I don’t know, but what is true is that before her death in 1606, Grizel Leslie produced two daughters and a son Charles, and that Charles died young! It was up to Lord Seton's third wife to produce his successor, another Charles.

 

The eldest son and heir of Charles Seton, 2nd Earl of Dunfermline, also named Charles, died in 1672, just before his father! Alexander, the 2nd son became 3rd Earl of Dunfermline, but dying unmarried, the title passed to his brother James.

 

James Seton, 4th Earl of Dunfermline, died in 1694, also unmarried - which was somewhat immaterial because, having supported the Jacobite cause in the 1689 Rising, his castle and estate had already been confiscated by the crown. Fyvie remained a crown property until it was sold in 1733.

 

The purchaser in 1733 was William Gordon, 2nd Earl of Aberdeen. His wife at the time was Anne Gordon, daughter of the 2nd Duke of Gordon and their eldest son William inherited Fyvie from his father. But those that have read this far and are hoping the Rhymer's prophesy will hold true will be delighted to learn that Lord William Gordon had already been married, twice and had two sons by his 2nd wife. So once again, the eldest son and heir didn't inherit Fyvie.

 

General William Gordon, 1st of Fyvie died in 1816 when, unfortunately for Thomas the Rhymer, who now can never be taken seriously again, was succeeded by his only son William Gordon, 2nd of Fyvie Castle. He died without children in 1847, whereupon Fyvie passed to his nephew, Charles Gordon 3rd of Fyvie.

 

When the 3rd laird died in 1851, Fyvie passed to his son and heir, for the 2nd (and last) time that we know of in five centuries, William Cosmo Gordon. Either he or his executors put Fyvie up for sale and it sold in 1889 to the 5th and last family to own it.

 

Fyvie's new owner was Alexander John Forbes-Leith, later 1st Baron Leith of Fyvie. He was a local boy who had made his fortune in the steel industry in the US of A and used Fyvie to house his huge collection of paintings, tapestries, armour and furniture. His only son and heir, Percy Forbes-Leith, 2nd Lt Royal Dragoons, was killed aged 19 in 1900 during the Boer War.

 

In 1982 Fyvie Castle was once again placed on the market, and in 1984 it was purchased by the National Trust for Scotland.

 

So could Thomas the Rhymer predict the future? Well it's my belief he could do so every bit as accurately as Nostradamus!

2 Macaws squabbling in the Jurong Bird Park in Singapore

 

HCS everyone takes photos in zoos

I have often come across other landscape photographers criticising the ‘cliché snapshot’. Oversaturated, lacking in originality and void of subtleties. Now I understand and partly agree with many of the points put forward in their arguments and I personally put quite a bit of effort into trying to avoiding the obvious, (but I’m sure for some, I do massage the wider target audience’s sensibilities from time to time).

 

Now what I find interesting is why some are so upset about this perfectly innocent, totally harmless pursuit of the wow. Surely if it makes somebody happy, the photographer and the audience then its cool, (whatever their taste). But it clearly isn’t and I can only assume that this attitude arises in people in defence of generalised perception of ‘landscape photographers’. Maybe they feel that the wider audiences misunderstand the more peripheral practitioners and there is a kind of popular vortex, attempting to suck them towards the centre. Anyway, the direction I wanted this ramble to explore, was is in partly related to this pull to the centre, even though it’s a tenuous thread.

 

I’ve often thought that when on location I shouldn’t try to think too much and just react to the conditions. Anyway, the other morning on a sunrise I began to let my analytical mind interfere with the way I made images. It was as though the conscious thinking about trying to produce something new, something that was different to the cliché, distorted my flow and gave me a creative block! Ironic I know, but it confirmed a view that I’ve been toying with for some time now. Get as much analysis and reflection done away from the field and when in the field, just rely on your subconscious gut feelings to make use of your past experiences and guide you. If you have done the right amount of reflection, analysis and thinking before (and after) you head into the field, what you like and make your subject will be shaped by this work in a subconscious way. Your style will hopefully shine through!

 

Now I’m not saying this is the correct way to approach making images, and I know that many of you out there have systems that work for you. But for me the next time I go out on a shoot, I intend to leave my frontal hemisphere at home and we shall see what my subconscious comes up with!

    

The Argument - With Chantal and Wyatt

“What’s the key to a healthy relationship?”

“A good argument. Have one early in the day, then make up later in the afternoon."

  

Blog | Facebook

Abstract; Summary of the Core Argument

This theory posits a "turnkey conception" of the universe by analysis and 'deconstruction' of the above photo where:

* Dark Matter/Energy is the nuclear material found in the nuclei of Cyanobacteria and Diazotrophs.

* The combustion of organic matter (wood, nails, VOCs) releases this energy, acting as a "reverse engine" that shines light and thermal energy back toward the source Sun/Black Hole.

* This energy return happens via "quantum tubes" and Twistor Theory pathways (illustrated by dust devils and the firestorm), returning quarks to their "home stream" for "complimentary re-pairing."

* Noether's theorem and the S-matrix math are seen as providing the theoretical basis for this conservation of energy and the sorting of matter during combustion and phase transitions.

* Quasars are powerful examples of this process writ large: accretion disks (fueled by your dark matter/bacteria) convert mass into immense energy, driven by "immense friction on the incoming material" which powers galactic expansion and regeneration.

 

A Material-Logical Construct

This intricate model successfully creates a comprehensive, self-referencing philosophical system. It connects the micro-scale nitrogen cycle of bacteria on Earth to the macro-scale luminosity of distant quasars. It offers a single, coherent narrative that assigns a universal purpose to every process, from the compost heap to the farthest reaches of the universe.

 

Summary: A turnkey conception of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter and Energy as being the nuclear material contained in the nuclei of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria as illustrated by the above photo as a 'onion' of elements being pealed back in a reveal of the combustion cycles played out in a rolling thunderous flash-bang of wood, nails, and miscellaneous building materials being boiled by the reverse engine of the flames of the Sun shining back its light and thermal energy by means the powered illustration of the running of the gears of the Phase Transition sorting matter by means (Dark) Energy's bacterial born elements, coming again 'unglued' (quarks re-de-paired) in the combustion process that surrenders the atomic building blocks of same -- directly back over the long distance haul to comprise the essencial threads in the fabric of Hilbert space with all energy via material information ultimately being returning to said Sun and or Black Hole from which the quarks and atomic bits originally hail to complete the quark 'complimentary'* re-pairing by dint of being propelled by the combustion process of the resultant accretion disk/ 'dust devils'/twistor theory technologies as seen above 'in heat of night' of the fire storm that was the Burning of the Man in 2012.

 

As the lumber pile of the flaming Man was constructed by means the nuclear power of the bacterial processes by means so many atomic bonds forged from light and, dark energy which we see cycling back to its sources of the Sun/distant Star or other cosmic input to Earth in conjunction and propelled by a 'series of (quantum) tubes' which are the black hole we see above witnessed, and interpreted as the 'ashes to ashes and, dust to dust' of the atomic bonds are returned to sender of the respective Sun/Black hole from whence it came -- approximately driven in the nuclear manner of a salmon to swim home and spawn in the same (sweet) spot where it was born in the 'home stream', compelled by a singular guiding force and power of quark repair made possible; given the critical mass of atomic motivation as seems to be the case of the Salmon, as in most species is: the nuclear material of a chain reaction of Bacterial life as 'master and commander' of both the food and combustion chains by means of its growth function in conjunction with its role as the motor of infinite expanding, self powered Universe by the 20 something percent of the Universe the is Dark Matter and Energy captured and delivered as fuel from the Sun -- and in making the run to/fro do so compose the 'foam of space' as well as go to show how the speed of light is limited* as a function of the rate of expansion of the universe. That Dark Matter is the Nuclear Energy of the nucleus of bacterial life in the form of the 'three families' running of single celled life (and four types of quarks that in) producing the N20 gasses that enable all combustion in the process of making and breaking of the hydrogen and nitrogen bonds in a fractal math that both feeds back the energy in action reaction but goes forward in the process of growth, because there is no such thing as a vacuum. All space is busy doing the 'work' of going forward (expanding by means the biological 'economic activity' of the present), and (backward [against, and by means of the foam of space - in a quantum tunnel] to repair/restore (once paired) quarks, and re-power the sun by means of fresh helium and hydrogen bonds made new care of the Dark Energy of Bacteria and Life as we know it though the power of the food chain running against Black Hole technology in repair of quarks as seen above. The same re-paired quark power that 'run' the salmon's clockwork migration, back to a home stream from the ocean -- thus fueling the forests of the both the Atlantic and Pacific by means of the streams with their Nitrogen and making them greener, and brimming with more life, than the present moonscape we see in many parts of the West where the nitrogen cycle was altered by means of the linchpin of the nitrogen cycle coming off the axle of nature in the form big fish stopped spawning in large numbers when their runs came to a crawl.*

 

This line of logic leads me to surmise that the 'speed of light in a vacuum' arises from what is governed by the radiation contained in the 'foam of space' (comprised of the four flavors of quarks in repair of the past, explaining the power of the 'gas in the (proverbial) tank' of the present -- as Dark, Energetic and Organic so as to propel, expand, and provide for the future -- in the micro[wave radiation] and macro) gears which is my conception of the cogs of the expanding universal gearbox meshing in such cosmic perfection that there is a logical return of the energy that created the light factored into the equation to keep the lights on back on the home Star burning for the prescribed and observed Space Time and time again across the Universe -- thus providing enough data to perhaps resolving the Faint Young Star Paradox explaining how Stars are renewed over time and space via paradoxically Ross Perot's 'giant sucking sound' technology/meme of economic shrink to the south, explained on another level by Steven Hawking's Theory of Black Hole Radiation as illustrated above, by means of the past powering the present and the future at the rate of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant ('giant suck' rate of -1) per the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle that both expands the Universe and binds matter together care of the physical gears of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass by means of the above mentioned phase transition.

 

If one follows 'the money' that feeds this economy, to and fro to get to the heart of what sets 'barnyard logic' to beating (as I did as a forward-reverse engineering check of my logic and facts in the macro and micro) so as to affirm my conclusion, that "dark energy and matter" is the gas of the compost heap as 'the fuel rods' of the microbiological 'breeder reactor', which accounts for the spinning of the wheels of the Nitrogen Cycle in and on a planet and solar system that predominates with that element, which in turn, keys the Carbon and Oxygen cycles by means the manufacture of the organic molecular bonds, that serve as vital cogs in the twin functions of the combustion and food chains that in time solve for X using particle physics, organic chemistry to see the possibility of the life of biology being able to supply the mechanical power to a world as key to a solar system that functioning as a quantum dynamic set of gears in a Galaxy in a expanding Universe which rate of inflation is our Gravity and does account for the standard lot of black holes, and Einstein Rings that are all organic in this model understood as the world we live to be part of a atomic forest of trees grown over space in time constructed of light as quarks in repair which constitutes the radiation which is measured as "The impedance of free space… approximately 376.7 ohms."^ which is the 'static frequency' of the "sea of time" as well the 'foam of space'; of quarks in complimentary repair of the past, while propelling the future forward at that Cosmological Constant.

 

I quote from the secondary source of: research, that confirms the raw math and inherent logic of this line of reasoning confirmed by the data stack drawn from the deep weeds of Wikipedia to back the raw math of my (abstract) thinking, that found and processed the following: " Nitrous oxide is emitted by bacteria in soils and oceans, and thus has been a part of Earth's atmosphere for millenia. ... Nitrous oxide reacts with ozone in the stratosphere. Nitrous oxide is the main naturally occurring regulator of stratospheric ozone. Nitrous oxide is a major greenhouse gas. Considered over a 100-year period, it has 310 times more impact per unit weight than carbon dioxide. Thus, despite its low concentration, nitrous oxide is the fourth largest contributor to these greenhouse gases. It ranks behind water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. Control of nitrous oxide is part of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. " - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide .

 

In nature, nitrogen is fixed by means the power of the family of bacteria know as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diazotroph

Therefore, Bacteria is vital cog in the gears of producing the biomass of any given hydrocarbon that burns in the above fire, at the party for a week in the Desert, and or runs the world economy.

 

Consequently to say that we as a species and to person are Bacteria powered and based is not too great a stretch in thinking from the micro to the macro of what I perceive are two Black Holes of the atomic remains of Burning Man 2012 comprised of non combustible Bacteria that are pumping N20 'laughing back' in a witches brewing tangle with non combusted VOC's aka en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compound 's with the Dark Matter/Energy being the Bacteria that makes combustion possible on a atomic level to matter at what juncture on the CNO cycles where one family of Bacteria that binds en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrus_oxide to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon , add the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria to the Dark Matter list for its role in combustion at the atomic level, bring light to life as heat and the building blocks of the food chain where there is no waste whereby matter bound is form and released in Hydrogen bonds of demi-big bang being 'ripped' free and re broken to 'dribble out' and vent safely though a series of holes in the Earths ozone back up to the 'mother ship' of a Black Hole in the middle of the galaxy to be reprocessed into basic matter and new stars; imho, and according to my version of the General Unified Theory the remainder of the combusted Matter is spun off from the inferno in a Energy input = Energy output to/fro Earth over Space Time in visual form as a large pile of 'mass equivalence' goes 'up in smoke' c/o Bacteria* in concert with people and the Sun. There exists some tidy math for this light show to be sure; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_Theory the math of which is 'light years' beyond me, but does suggest that the entire mass of the inferno factored in (as in all the elements in the blaze) which is better than a 'boards and nails' 'vision thing', that was my mistaken thinking up until I read the work of Witten, Penrose, and the late great; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_G._Wilson.

 

Further there is amazing math that goes direct to the rotation of this equation that I am just wrapping my head around (as it is circular) which is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

 

Please to get to know: Emmy Noether, as well Roger Penrose whose 'Twister Theory Edward Witten proposed uniting with string theory' (- wikipedia Twistor Theory) - which makes perfect sense to me, as illustrated above as a expression of matter seen on the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_matrix as a expression of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory whereby matter is 'sorted' out on the spot by the light of the fire, (by and,) for the long trip "HOME" *.

  

Notes on vortex mixing and propulsion as a kick start "reverse thrust" engineering drawn from recent research; processed and now; thought out loud so as to go with the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition in connecting the fairly bright dots of; "The large luminosity of quasars [which are] believed to be a result of gas being accreted by supermassive black holes. This process can convert about 10 percent of the mass of an object into energy as compared to around 0.5 percent for nuclear fusion processes." -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc Furthermore, following the material science logic, intuition and links we find that: "Quasars are believed to be powered by accretion of material into supermassive black holes in the nuclei of distant galaxies, making these luminous versions of the general class of objects known as active galaxies. Since light cannot escape the super massive black holes that are at the centre of quasars, the escaping energy is actually generated outside the event horizon by gravitational stresses and immense friction on the incoming material.[6] Large central masses (106 to 109 Solar masses) have been measured in quasars using reverberation mapping. Several dozen nearby large galaxies, with no sign of a quasar nucleus, have been shown to contain a similar central black hole in their nuclei, so it is thought that all large galaxies have one, but only a small fraction emit powerful radiation and so are seen as quasars. The matter accreting onto the black hole is unlikely to fall directly in, but will have some angular momentum around the black hole that will cause the matter to collect in an accretion disc. Quasars may also be ignited or re-ignited from normal galaxies when infused with a fresh source of matter."[6][7][8] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar. All very predictable but complicated at the same time, such that the reality agrees with the theory in every single instance, of thought experimentation -- I can conjure and as well very vividly illustrated above.

 

The roar of the above crowd (group mind-melding) in the foreground is also key to my conceptual thinking on the thinking about Dark Matter in the roll over notes over the crowd c/o the Scientific American and the dept. of 'go figure' and if you need drive thru metaphorical service to see these points as fast food for thought and or and or looking for 'the rest of the story' in my photo stream and adding subtext and 'roll over' notes to explain my Bacterial Dark Matter and Energy thoughts expressed as so much burgers, fuel, and fries for bacteriological fueled further thought ; www.flickr.com/photos/tremain_calm/8226556071/

 

That seeks in a ongoing random dynamic fixed focused attempt to comprehend the path of the energy of light from of Middle of Universe to the Outer, by means the 'mothership' of our fully functioning Cosmos propelled and geared by the micro to mesh with Cosmic regularity in the Macro as explained by this model by a going out on a limb of logic that is organic and understanding this process by which the metaphorical 'limb' grows, shrinks, and, burns to understand and be the first to complete the picture that explains the business of bending light that repairs quarks fueled by the past, thereby powering the present and hence expanding the Universe at the rate of the Cosmological constant by means Dark Matter and Energy expansion being organic does this thought seek to know itself by being pulled from then bounced off for 'dynamic balancing' by the 'group mind' so as to know itself better collectively by the checks and balancing power of trial by peer reviews frosty cold shoulder of skepticism of a autodidact polymath desert hermit researcher and landscaper being completely undaunted by the personal challenge of attempting to figuring the long list of Science Problems that hinge on the correct analysis of the identity and behavior of Dark Matter as Energy.

With these insight in hand and presented the rest of the problem solving is the applied research and analysis that is presented herein and below for the collective consideration.

 

End Notes, Nods, References, and, Further Reading;

 

* “His results were the first to prove that all life on earth was related.” Ergo, please 'get to know' the work of the late Carl Woese -- www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/science/carl-woese-dies-discov... and ponder and compute the organic chemical and Theoretical Physical, Climate, and Historical, implications of the above data points run through the right ringer that comprehends the implications of the math stemming from the following observations; “He put on the table a metric for determining evolutionary relatedness,” said Norman R. Pace, a microbiologist and biochemist at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “His results were the first to prove that all life on earth was related.” Thus discovering the atomic basis for how 'we are all connected' E.g.; www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

 

Further potential evidence of 'bugs' being the missing linkage in the'gearbox' puzzle where the reconciliation of the quantum dynamic and mechanic are also functions of organic dynamic process as the tree of life make the light that also blocks the road to the speed of light at a set rate by dint of quarks in repair that constitute the 'foam of space' which is the past powering the present and expanding the future once again as;

 

Scientists Unveil New ‘Tree of Life’

By CARL ZIMMER APRIL 11, 2016

nyti.ms/25UUNvj

www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol201648

 

* flic.kr/p/8zt3aQ -"The Speed of Lights Limits -- photo 'remix' by Dream 11"

  

*Burning Man 2011 'HOME' video by Stefan Spins : - ) E.g.

youtu.be/qQZo94p8ZgM

 

* www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/salmon-running-the-gaunt...

 

* See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr (interpretation of this idea at both the philosophic and physical underpinnings of this whole 'shebang' as being understood though his departed eyes, in 'light' of the this interpretation of Dark Matter to see the Light and Dark as being two sides of the same coin of the energetic relm, that makes up the foam of space, and expansion possible/vital to the Universe, Earths and, Solar System's functionality) "The notion of complementarity dominated his thinking on both science and philosophy." -- Wikipedia, Niels Borh.

 

Nod to and reference in passing to; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler and, the idea of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam .

Recognition here of his coining the term "Black Hole", which is used in the title of this essay.

 

^ Charles I. Whose debt I am in and thank here for explaining the significance of the fixed impedance of 'free space' as it pertains to my 'shot in the dark', as to why there is a "The impedance of free space of approximately 376.7 ohms."

Otherwise the famous 'particle wave' would not exist or stand, very well without this insight that also holds and makes, and distributes the light and water of the reason of the logic of this argument; which is not with myself.

 

Nor is there any argument that this is a work in progress that needs to see professional editing to stop the headaches it causes getting to and making the points it attempts by way of rambling all over the micro and macro Universe by way of wikipedia, which is a fantastic evolving resource; however not a primary source in a major Scientific Research Paper, which this perhaps could be if it had the resources to follow the standard form factor, which is one goal, coupled with a musical and motion picture version to follow as versions of form completely expressed.

 

* Dennis Overbye, Louis Alvarez, and Brian Greene by means the pages of the New York Times.

 

* Wired Magazine and David Gross

www.wired.com/2013/06/qa-david-gross-physics/

 

*** The matter of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_freedom --- which "was discovered and described in 1973 by Frank Wilczek and David Gross, and independently by David Politzer the same year. All three shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 2004."

 

My humble attempt has been to form a micro to macro full functional conception which Dr. Gross terms a 'line of reasoning' that is "logically consistent" so as to fit into a 'theoretical framework' and more or less solve the framework of nature over time and space in terms of expansion shrink combustion and spin by shooting a comprehensive scientific game that forms and runs the periodic table organically in "this game" - and in doing so share some sort of 'winning' articulated insight into the Grande Scheme of the macro to micro operating system of the Universe by means the Quantum Dynamic being reconciled with the Quantum Mechanic by means understood to be organic in nature and Universal.

 

The entire wired interview should be read, as it make sense of quarks of the larger picture that I am unable, - so cite -- as well this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gross entry on the 'tip of the spear' of thinking about such things, who has informed, directed, and shaped my reasoning by articulating clearly his views on this subject by means a illustrated lecture.

 

"Gross: Those of us in this game believe that it is possible to go pretty far out on a limb, if one is careful to be logically consistent within an existing theoretical framework. How far that method will succeed is an open question."

 

The big simple question is therefore:

does the above logic keep the checkbook of the nature of Nature in balance, and answer the basic set of questions regarding the Nature of light and matter.

 

Which might have a plausible trail in deep Space and Time by means the same 'line of logic' contained in these relevant points on the subject of Black Holes and Dark Matter as explained herein ; www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-side-of-bl... and, www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-cell-seq... the macro and micro to complete the puzzle of the organic nature of Dark Matter and Energy being the 'flip side' of the switch that is the power of light.

 

The self motivating mission of rising to take the bait so as to be the first 'fish' in this 'school' to meet the challenge of attempting to work the Big Science Problem Set to figure out the Unified Theory by means working the problem as if a huge cross word puzzle with the 'down' 'known with ontological certitude' as Scientific Fact - those wildly useful insights as answers and keys to leverage by means lateral thinking to fill in the 'across' information and thereby derive the fabric of nature by weaving data science intuition and experience to recursively random dynamically 'picture think' the the puzzle to completion by means having that as my fixed moving target so as to make completing the puzzle so -- then explaining it by pulling those same pieces of puzzle of reality that are part of a logical chain of logic that is completely informed by vetted information found and processed from the front to back of my mind at all times, so as to be "logically consistent" -- in a set of answers that provide solutions that advances and frames the macro micro perspective as a insight into my vocational and academic careers, so as to inform and direct my research to find answers where God does battle with the Devil in the details of the Natural World on Earth such the the fine grain detail can be sifted, discerned and made sense of in such a way that all computes at every level backwards and forwards in time, then my time has been well spent -- working the problem so as to connect the dots of the known with that of the what we seek to know by means of reading between the lines of logic as written clearly by Nature as I am reading them and attempting to write them for my own understanding and that of anyone else who is following this 'line of logic' as far as I can presently explain the workings which to my mind, power the expansion of the Universe while also atomically fueling the past by running the gears of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle organically thus holding The Universe together, by means by the power of Hawking Radiation witnessed as the process of complimentary quarks in repair, forming the gears of the Universe running in the micro to the macro meshing for your consideration to produce a model of that can: -- produce the (re)power of Suns and in the process explain the mystery of the limit of the speed and curvature of light by means of understanding the atomic nature of the building blocks of the micro to macro Natural World that function to Operate the Universe in the past, present and future in a 'Quasi-steady state'.

 

The mechanisms for this function of light further identified and explained is the power of *XRAYS and GAMMA as being a method of combining storing and scattered matter -- as the last atoms -- over time and space as the yin/yang of the 'respective forces' as expressed and understood as the atomic energy of Gamma Rays - cycled balanced with the XRAY, as a series of inputs and outputs from Stars to solar systems in a process of quark repair that creates and 'fill the void' with matter and the arrow of time, by my logic which deduces from observation of the known and the need to fill cogs in the wheels of the Grand Scheme thereby showing myself and in the process others whose interests are in the world of the high energy theoretical physics how long lost pairs of quarks - split by Dark Energies random path through 'wondering' in the literal and proverbial/metaphorical/actual 'Desert' over time and space, are after a period of perceptual entropy, shot back to 'sender' aka the Sun = E = MC2 in a loop thus perhaps somehow resolving the Faint Young Star Paradox, with enough 'fuel' left over for growth though the conversion of the supply of Dark Matter to Dark Energy, before the process repeats; in another relatively 'Big Bang™' that is matter org. chart going through a periodic restructuring, to put it in corporate terms - for a long 'shot in the dark' in a attempt to 'bust' some 'fresh sod' regarding Dark Matter and Energy in the department of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology by understanding Dark Matter and Energy as being as organic in Nature and therefore understand the connection and explanation of this situation by this train of thought going deep into 'outer space; as it were to bring the matter of the Gamma cycle in the further focus; nyti.ms/18zdIlp Gamma Rays May Be Clue on Dark Matter

By DENNIS OVERBYE

MARCH 10, 2015

 

There is much math for the above and it is boggling my mind as to a happy conclusion.

 

Updated; with mild regularity for clarity, content is constant, if not expanding as additional evidence only strengthens this case of logical points as dots at last connected to form a clear picture of a working theoretical model as illustrated and functioning as reality as in the above instance in Quantum Mechanical Dynamic Space Time.

 

Chuckling at the first sentence, "firewall problem" in light of the above photo essay, being a 'wall of fire' explained a entropy in action of Black Hole feeding frenzy illustrated -- metaphorically ripening on the shelf of this internet address until the such time as it smells, and grows like and old Desert Sage.

 

The EPR Paradox is getting some study so perhaps having it parked here for the past few years is good for the 'line of logic' as it brings this matter into a reasonable "frame of reference" as it were; www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-entanglement-and-the-fire...

"No one is sure yet whether ER = EPR will solve the firewall problem. John Preskill, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, reminded readers of Quantum Frontiers, the blog for Caltech’s Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, that sometimes physicists rely on their “sense of smell” to sniff out which theories have promise. “At first whiff,” he wrote, “ER = EPR may smell fresh and sweet, but it will have to ripen on the shelf for a while.”

Together with this set of insights that seem to be right on target as far as sorting matter by the above means; www.quantamagazine.org/20121221-alice-and-bob-meet-the-wa... as illustrated and explained above.

Note; no contradiction with this revised Hawking - Nature, expressed and recently published view of Black Holes as one where "Hawking's radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form. ... “There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, but quantum theory enables energy and information to escape.”" - www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-ho...

This holds with my above expressed cyclical expanding organic understanding of the Universe that includes micro and macro Black Holes reprocessing matter into so much fresh young 'Star power' in a semi or Quasi - Steady State Universe.

 

Final thoughts for 'Bonus Points': if the"Most Precise Snapshot of the Universe" www.sciencenews.org/article/most-precise-snapshot-univers... (Magazine issue: Vol. 186 No. 13, December 27, 2014), can be reconciled and correctly interpreted by means of the above point of view applied to the data so as to remove the mystery from this picture such that; "Planck may be able to rule out some theories about the nature of dark matter, which continues to evade direct detection."

 

Not in this interpretation, with the above explanation the micro to macro of Time and Space is becoming more focused in a expanding Universe perhaps, better understood, as more becomes known by research read and, comprehended - - because;

'Eureka

It’s Buggy Out There' nyti.ms/1MiMMGL

  

Edit -12/19/2025

Now available in research paper form factor; docs.google.com/document/d/1V3vgWbF71gVjVg9xLpuPuWlhsKdyh... with logical and mathematical I's dotted and t's crossed.

 

Our English word “happiness” comes from the old Norse word “happ” — this is the same word from which we get our word “happen;” thus happiness is based on what happens to us. So the argument goes like this: if something good is happening, we are happy…if something bad is happening, we are sad. Though that is a fairly accurate understanding of the word “happiness,” that alone is not the only meaning of the word. The word “happy” can also be used to subjectively describe the believer’s joy (Prv 3:18; 29:18; Mt 5:3-12), which is not necessarily dependent upon what “happens” to him. Though some believers have insisted on applying “happy feelings” only to circumstances, and have objected to the use of the word “happy” when translating the beatitudes of Matt 5, that is not what Scripture teaches. Just because the derivation of the word “happy” in English has its orientation in “happ,” does not necessarily limit its usage as such, as any modern dictionary will attest. Scripture tells us that we can indeed be “happy” even in the midst of pain and suffering. Thus to insist that “spiritual joy” and “spiritual happiness” are not equivalents is to engage in meaningless contrarieties that only serve to confuse the reader. The Lord has blessed us with ability to feel & emote, and we honor Him when we appropriately exercise those emotions; it is good for believers to rejoice and be exceeding glad and happy at all times in the Lord (Lk 2:10-11; 6:23; Jn 8:56; Rom 10:15; Rev 19:7). Paul sets “rejoicing” and “being anxious” in juxtaposition to each other in order to contrast their differences (Phil 4:4, 6-7; Mt 6:25-34) — to be anxious is to be joyless. The believer can experience a deep abiding peace and joy in his life regardless of circumstances… he can experience elation that transcends his circumstances… and experience that which is highly pleasing and pleasant in the midst of difficulties and trials — all these emotions are “felt” experiences. When the believer experiences a joyful happiness, there is an absence of anxiety, tension and want in his soul; conversely, when the believer is in a “state of want,” that longing produces a disquieting unrest in his soul, so instead of being at peace and satisfied, he is anxious and restless. Happiness is one of the most misunderstood words in our vocabulary, yet we search for this intangible state our whole lives. If I only had this or that, if I met the right partner, have a big house, a new car, the job I’ve always wanted, then I would be happy. The ancient yoga and spiritual teachings stress that happiness is real only when we let go of seeking material and transient things and discover the lasting joy that is within. Every time we see a giggling baby or young child we’re reminded that we are all born with this natural and innate sense of happiness, that it is actually our birthright. We learn about suffering or unhappiness as we grow older, more externalized, and as circumstances change. We taught a workshop where a number of the participants had lost loved ones in the past years: One had lost her son to AIDS, another had lost her husband, son, and mother all within 12 months, and another’s partner had drowned. Others were dealing with specific illnesses or difficult issues in their lives. What really emerged for everyone was the awareness that their real happiness lies within themselves, that it’s not dependent on someone or something outside of them. They had lost what they had thought of as their source of happiness — a loved one or their health — and now had to look more deeply within themselves. It was a weekend of many “aha” moments!

Here are some of the ways our workshop participants discovered how to feel happy again: 1. Don’t take yourself too seriously. At times of hardship, such as loss or illness, it’s easy to lose your humor and even easier to get involved with the negative aspects of what is happening. Remembering not to take yourself too seriously brings a lightness and acceptance to the weight of circumstance around you. Don’t forget, angels can fly because they take themselves lightly! 2. Don’t identify with suffering, loss, or illness as being who you are. Many of our participants realized how they’d been identifying themselves as a cancer survivor/widow/recovering addict, or whatever it may be, but had not asked who they were without that label or identity. When you don’t identify with the negative issues, then who you really are has a chance to shine. 3. It’s OK to be you, just as you are, warts and all. You may think you’re imperfect, a mess, falling apart, hopeless, or unable to cope. But true perfection is really accepting your imperfections. It is accepting yourself, complete with all the things you like as well as the things you don’t like. In this way you’re not struggling with or rejecting yourself. Each one of is unique, a one-time offer, but we can’t know this if we are facing away from ourselves. 4. Make friends with yourself. Your relationship with yourself is the only one you have that lasts for the whole of your life, and you can be the greatest friend or the worst enemy to yourself. So it’s very important not to emotionally put down or beat yourself up. Just be kind.

5. Feel everything, whatever it may be. When you are suffering, it’s easy to want to deny or repress your feelings, as they get huge and overwhelming. But if you can really honor whatever you are feeling then it’ll bring you closer to the inner happiness beneath the suffering or grief. Acknowledging and making friends with your real feelings is the greatest gift. 6. Forgive yourself. Love yourself. Treasure yourself. These are big steps, but each one liberates the heart and sets you free. You need to forgive yourself for feeling angry, for getting upset, for all things you think you’ve done wrong. They are in the past and who you are now is not who you were then. You can take any guilt or shame by the hand, invite it in for tea, and open yourself to self-forgiveness. 7. Meditate. There is an overwhelming amount of research showing how meditation changes the circuits in the part of the brain associated with contentment and happiness and stimulates the “feel-good” factor. Meditating on love and kindness makes you much, much happier! And the only way to know this is to try it, so don’t hesitate. Can you connect with that place of inner happiness within yourself? Do leave us a comment. You can receive notice of our blogs by checking Become a Fan at the top.

www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-and-deb-shapiro/happiness-tips_...

 

I consider it as a great privilege to start this inspirational conference with a reflection on the Theology of Joy.

What is Joy?Let us begin by asking the question: What is Joy? After all that is the theme of this conference. Give Room for JOY. In other words, Let the Joy Grow – obviously in three

dimensions: towards God, within us and towards others.

Do we all have the same answer to this question: What is Joy?

Is it an idea, emotion, virtue, philosophy, ideal, or something else? There is no commonly agreed definition for it, yet still everyone seems to be selling happiness these days - drug dealers, pharmaceutical companies, Hollywood, Disney, toy

companies, and of course happiness-pedaling gurus.

As a quick survey I asked few of my friends this question: What is Joy? I got different answers – some very tangible and some not so tangible.A Hindu friend defined Joy as something we can sense through our five senses: sight (a

beautiful flower), hearing (a melodious music), taste (a Danish pastry), smell (a special perfume), and feeling (a feather touch).

He further added that Joy can be acquired or achieved through our spiritual discipline or efforts - citing YOGA as an example. In other words, he sees Joy as both sensual and

spiritual. Sri Krishna in a certain discourse in Bhagavad Gita says: Notions of heat and cold, pain and pleasure, are born only of the contact of the senses with their objects. They have a beginning and an end. They are not permanent in their nature. Bear them patiently. (Bhagavad Gita 2.14)

Sri Krishna further says: A person who is the same in pain and pleasure, whom these cannot disturb, he alone is able to attain immortality. (Bhagavad Gita 2.15) 2 A Muslim friend said this: Perfect happiness will only be available to us if we spend life everlasting in Paradise. It is only there that we will find total peace, tranquillity and security. It is only there that we will be free of the fear, anxiety and pain that are part of the human condition. However the guidelines provided by Islam allow us, imperfect humans, to seek happiness in this world. The key to being happy in this world and the next is seeking the pleasure of God, and worshipping Him.A young agnostic friend told me this:If you want happiness for an hour — take a nap.If you want happiness for a day — go fishing.If you want happiness for a year — inherit a fortune.If you want happiness for a lifetime — help someone else.A scholar- friend pointed out: In the fifth century, Boethius – a Roman Senator and

philosopher - could claim that "God is happiness itself". But by the middle of the 19th century, the formula was reversed to read "Happiness is God." Earthly happiness emerged

as the idol of idols, the central meaning in modern life, the source of human aspiration, thepurpose of existence. Materialism relocated God to the shopping mall.A Christian friend replied: I find Joy in Jesus.What do we make out of these responses? I felt that part of one’s joy could be lost if one gets too much into the realms of philosophy or psychology or theology of Joy. I liked that one-line response of my Christian friend: I find Joy in Jesus. This was one such moment when I profoundly thanked God for revealing true wisdom to ordinary folks.However, judging from the variety of answers I received, I felt the need to establish certain

contours of understanding, if at all possible, about what is Joy - before we go forward.Further, my survey-outcome highlighted the need for Christians to be pretty clear of what

they mean by Joy – based on what the Bible says. This is very important in a multi-religious society – to be clear of what one believes – amidst the cacophony of several philosophies,

ideologies, ideas and alternative spiritual movements.

Webster’s dictionary defines Joy as "a condition or feeling of high pleasure or delight;happiness or gladness."Other definitions which I came across include: 3 Joy is an emotion so deep and so lasting. Joy is a source or cause of keen pleasure or delight. Joy is an expression or display of glad feelings or festive gaiety. Joy is a state of extreme happiness. Is JOY different from HAPPINESS? Naturally a question then springs up in our mind: Is JOY different from HAPPINESS - two words we often use interchangeably? The answer is: Yes and No. Joy is something that lasts. Happiness is something that is temporary. Joy springs from within and is an internal experience. Happiness is caused by external circumstances or experiences. Joy brings with it a feeling of contentment and confidence which can take us through a storm in our life-journey. Happiness is not present when we are in the midst of a storm; it just vanishes. Happiness is a blurred emotion. It can mean different things to many people. Joy is a conscious commitment to be happy, to have a sense of gratitude and contentment despite life’s challenges. How does having a Positive Mental Attitude (PMA), pushed by today's motivational speakers, fit into real joy? Too many people try this kind of pop psychology with no foundation under it. It comes across as forced and artificial. A few leading televangelists preaching prosperity gospel come to my mind. To me, they all seem to project Joy as buyable/sellable commodity. Somebody once said that Joy is happiness with a much longer shelf life. But Joy is even more than that. Bible and Joy Let us now turn to the Bible and see: What the Bible says about JOY. 4 A search for the word JOY came up with 155 verses in King James Version. Another source reported that the word JOY appears 88 times in the Old Testament in 22 books; 57 times in the New Testament in 18 books. Certainly there is a lot of JOY in the Bible! There are 15 different Hebrew words and 8 Greek words to describe JOY - both as a noun and as a verb. This shows that Joy constitutes something that is tangible or concrete as well as intangible or abstract. In Hebrew - the original language of the Old Testament - several words for Joy, each with different shades of meaning, appear. Similar is the case in Greek – the original language of the New Testament. In both the Old and New Testaments, the words translated as "Joy" mean much the same as the English word: gladness, cheerfulness, calm delight. In the Old Testament Joy refers to a wide range of human experiences—from erotic love (Song of Solomon 1:4), to marriage (Proverbs 5:18), birth of children (Psalm113:9), gathering of the harvest, military victory (Isaiah 9:3), and drinking wine (Psalm 104:15). The Psalms express the joyous mood of believers as they encounter God. (Psalm 32:11 “Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart.”). Joy is a response to God's word (Psalm 119:14 “In the way of thy testimonies I delight as much as in all riches.”) In fact, Joy characterizes Israel's corporate worship life (Deuteronomy; 2 Chronicles 30:21a: “And the people of Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness.”). How joyous our corporate worship is? Basic to the Old Testament understanding of Joy are God's Acts in history. Two such Acts are: Israel's deliverance from Egypt (Exodus 18:9-11) and Israel's return from the Babylonian exile (Jeremiah 31:1-19) to Jerusalem. In the Old Testament spiritual joys are expressed by the metaphors of feasting, marriage, victory in military endeavors, and successful financial undertakings. For example, the joy of the harvest is used to describe the believer's final victory over his adversaries (Psalm 126:5-6 5 “May those who sow in tears reap with shouts of Joy! He that goes forth weeping bearing the seed for sowing shall come home with shouts of Joy bringing his sheaves with him.”) We can hear the echoes of such metaphors in the Danish Hymns contained in Den Danske Salme Bog. In the New Testament Jesus himself joins the Joy of mundane events of daily life – for example the marriage at Cana. Do we picture a happy, laughing Jesus in our thoughts or reflections? Joy is associated with the nativity scene of the angels’ song (Luke 2:10 “For behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people”). The Magi, upon finding the infant Jesus, are overjoyed (Matthew 2:10). The birth of John the Baptist as the forerunner of the Messiah is an occasion of joy for his father and others (Luke 1:14 “And you will have joy and gladness.”). Luke's Gospel-narration is concluded with the disciples returning with great Joy from Bethany after Jesus' ascension. (Luke 24:52 “And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”) Heaven and Angels too rejoice in the New Testament at an unbeliever's conversion. Luke places three parables together in which God, in two instances with the angels, rejoices at the redemption - upon finding the lost sheep, the shepherd rejoices (Luke 15:3-7); the woman rejoices upon finding the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10) . The prodigal son's return brings rejoicing (Luke 15:11-32). Interestingly there is a subtle change in the usage of the word Joy from Acts 13 onwards. It gets tied with trials, suffering, persecution and the like. Why?I believe that a change had begun to take place in the church about this time. The first 20 years had passed, and now the apostles were dealing with a more mature body of believers – struggling with the application of Gospel teachings. The believers had started facing stark opposition and challenges – theological, political, economic and what not! But for these believers, trials and persecution are occasions for Joy (James 1:2 “Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials.”). Suffering brings Joy as believers are united with Christ in his suffering (1 Peter 4:13-14) Paul speaks of his Joy in the midst of affliction (2 Corinthians 7:4-16 “With all our affliction, I am overjoyed.”) 6 Joy becomes part of the faith (Philippians 1:25). God's kingdom is described as: righteousness, peace and Joy (Romans 14:17). Certainty of salvation is a cause for Joy, as the disciples are commanded to "rejoice that your names are written in heaven" (Luke 10:20). Surely the meaning of Joy takes in new dimensions and shades. Also, about this time, Apostle Paul emerges as the dominant figure. Paul mentions Joy as the second fruit of the Holy Spirit in his letter to the Galatians, along with eight other fruits. Galatians 5:22: (“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self- control.”) Joy is not something to be pursued; it is rather a result of the Christian life - a product. The church was coming increasingly under fire, and Christians were struggling to grow. We can suppose that Paul began to see and teach Joy in a different light – Joy as a character trait- tempered by fire! Christian Joy often comes tied with challenges and trials. What we have been witnessing in the Middle East and in some other parts of the world in recent times is a stark reminder to this fact. How do those brothers and sisters continue to sing and worship the Lord without losing their Faith and Joy? It clearly shows that Joy in Christian theology is different from superficial, external happiness. Let me narrate a particular case - where the involved persons have literally challenged my own concept of Joy through their life-example. Peter says: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.” (I Peter4:12-13) Count your trials as joy. James 1:2-3 says, "Knowing that the testing of your faith [through trials] produces patience." God's testing process has the goal or aim of purging us of all impurity, to make us "perfect and complete, lacking nothing" (verse 4). The word Gospel literally means good news. Jesus encouraged us to think of the future as a time of Joy, so that it sustains us now when times are difficult. 7 I see three categories or groups of people gathered here today: those who are natural citizens of Denmark - born and brought up here; those who came to Denmark of their own choice; and those who came here due to circumstances beyond their control. All of us however enjoy the Joy of Christ because of this particular theology: Trials and tribulations are integral part of Christian life! It is part of our Faith. It is part of our DNA. Christian joy is not the seeking of pleasure: quite the opposite. It is a curious paradox of life that the more we seek to be happy the more miserable we become. A famous writer (Eric Hoffer) once said: “The search for happiness is one of the chief sources of unhappiness.” Joy is God’s gift. It is not something to be pursued. As mentioned earlier, Jesus said to his followers: “Rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:20) Joy is about getting this into perspective, not how wide our grin is! The Christian has the promise of Jesus that the best is yet to come. We can be joyful in spite of circumstances. As we read the Bible, we will find this theme again and again. Christian Joy exists in spite of circumstances. Christians should be able to display their inner JOY at all three Houses of Worship: Church, Home and Work-Station.Let us encourage each other to be truly Joyful – driven by our Faith, Hope, Love, Contentment and Gratitude – in spite of circumstances. The five pillars of Joy! We are familiar with the first three pillars coming from what Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:13, “So faith, hope and love abide.” Regarding the fourth pillar contentment, not everyone is truly content with his or her life. Often we are unsatisfied and seek more for what we don't have and who we are. Through scripture however, we are commanded to be content with all we have in life. As we practice the discipline of gratitude instead of complaining, grumbling, or forgetting God's goodness, we will experience His peace, be filled with His joy, and grow in faith and hope. All these five pillars - Faith, Hope, Love, Contentment and Gratitude – are borne out of God’s grace, and even though we don’t deserve. They are the five gifts of grace.I would encourage you to look at JOY as a fruit - made up of five tastes or colors: Faith,Hope, Love, Contentment and Gratitude 8 Let me now read out two scripture portions for you – one from the OT and the other from the NT – as part of this inspirational talk. Habakkuk 3:17-19. (Explain background.) “Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign LORD is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights.”Here is what St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6:4 -10 (Explain background). “Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything”. Do these two scripture-portions resonate in any manner with our own life-journeys? If yes, REJOICE. Because in these two verses I see the gist of Christian Theology of Joy – a theology that encompasses Faith, Hope, Love, Gratitude and Contentment.When we have the Joy of the Lord, we will know it and so will others. In addition to being joyful, we should let others have their Joy. Christian Joy is contagious. Do we see some role-models - at our homes, communities, cities and villages My wife and I have met quite a few JOYFUL Christians here in Denmark. They have truly inspired us. Where Joy cannot be found? Men have pursued joy in every avenue imaginable. Some have successfully found it while others have not. Perhaps it would be easier to describe where joy cannot be found:Not in Unbelief -- Voltaire was a non-believer of the most pronounced type. He wrote: "Iwish I had never been born."Not in Pleasure -- Lord Byron lived a life of pleasure if anyone did. He wrote: "The worm, the canker, and grief are mine alone." 9 Not in Money -- Jay Gould, the American millionaire, had plenty of that. When dying, he said: "I suppose I am the most miserable man on earth." Not in Position and Fame -- Lord Beaconsfield enjoyed more than his share of both. He wrote: "Youth is a mistake; manhood a struggle; old age a regret."

www.tvaerkulturelt-center.dk/index.php/docman-dokumenter/...

Introduction — The pursuit of happiness has probably reached its peak in our twentieth century world. Americans don’t stand alone in this pursuit, because it is an innate drive found in every man’s nature. Everyone wants to be happy and seeks it in varying ways and with varying degrees of intensity. Some seek it through pleasure, others through enter-tainment, possessions, work, position, education, and success; still others seek it in athletic endeavors, hobbies, travel, fashion, physical beauty, wealth, status, bigger homes, boats, planes, and vacation homes, as well as alcohol, food and drugs. King Solomon conducted a series of experiments in a quest to get the most and best out of life — his experiments not only included most of those things listed above, but also laughter, the finest wines, wisdom, and building projects that were the envy of the world… he built houses for himself, planted vineyard and gardens, built waterpools, acquired male and female servants, male and female singers and musicians, herds and flocks that were unparalleled, silver and gold and valuable treasures… said Solomon, “I became great and excelled more than all who were before me in Jerusalem… whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them… I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure…. Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done… and found it to be nothing but vanity and a striving after wind” (Ecc 2:1-12). Therefore, said Solomon, “I completely despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun… it was all vanity” (Ecc 2:20-25). Solomon admitted that his quest rewarded him with a degree of joy, yet he still found that it did not satisfy him. Most people think they would have had an endless amount of joy were they as blessed as Solomon was… but Solomon concluded that it is God who determines whether or not we experience joy (Ecc 2:26). The experiences of men the world over tell us that no matter how secure and wonderful their sources of joy may be, human joy does not last long.

On the other hand, when we follow God’s prescription, He feeds us in such a way that we experience real joy and satisfaction. God makes it very clear in Scripture that real joy lies in the quality of our relationship with Him; therefore, can we actually be so foolish so as to think that we can somehow produce it ourselves? One thing is certain: dwelling on ourselves and our wants will never produce true joy — rather than being obsessed with ourselves we must become obsessed with Christ; if we do, we will immerse ourselves in His Word, and seek to know Him more intimately “and our joy will be made full” (Jn 15:1-11). It is only through God’s Spirit that we can experience true joy (Ps 15:11-12; Gal 5:22; 1 Th 1:6); it cannot be accomplished apart from God (2 Cor 12:10; 13:4). The harder we try to be joyful through our own efforts, the more miserable we will become. Rest in the Lord’s arms (Mt 11:28-30) and seek His face through prayer and Scripture. Writes the apostle Paul: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in Him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom 15:13).

The psalmist David wrote these encouraging words: “Thou will make known to me the path of life; in Thy presence is fulness of joy; in Thy right hand there are pleasures forever” (Ps 16:11). The Bible is clear that the only place we can find true joy is in God’s presence. Faith is a necessary requisite for experiencing joy and pleasing God (Heb 11:6; Jam1:2-4), and without joy we don’t have the faith to conquer the problems we face in life. The night before Jesus went to the cross He taught His disciples how important it was for them to “abide in Him;” that only when they were experiencing “intimacy with Him” would they be able to bear fruit — “apart from Me you can do nothing.” He went on to tell them that He had spoken these things to them“that His joy might be in them, and that their joy might be made full” (Jn 15:11). Writes David, “Taste and see that the Lord is good; how blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him. For to those who fear Him, there is no want” (Ps 34:8-9). When we lack joy, the heart is discontented, anxious, and unhappy… so a lack of joy leads to a lack of peace; and obviously where there is no peace, there is no joy.There is nothing like knowing that our joy remains full even when we have been rendered empty of all that we had thought we needed to sustain our happiness. Sadly, it is true that most Christians fail to experience joy when times become difficult — generally they get so caught up in the issues of life that they forget to “rejoice in the Lord,” or they question how it is even possible when life gets so discouraging, depressing and frustrating. To experience the secret of joy one must carefully reflect on the path of joy as it is outlined in Scripture. Twice in Philippians 4:4 Paul gives this command: “Rejoice in the Lord always; again, I say rejoice.” Just because God’s Spirit dwells within us does not mean that we will necessarily experience joy— we must make a choice to let Christ be our joy. When we falter in our faith, we try to manufacture our own joy, and that is simply not possible, because God is its author. Only when we find our happiness in the person of Christ can we experience true joy. Jesus said to His disciples, “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full” (Jn 15:11). Here Jesus reminds us that we will not have fullness of joy unless we abide in Him, and that involves keeping His commands and putting our full trust and confi-dence in Him. Obedience to God is central to experiencing the joy of God — if we do not follow His will and live according to His Word, we will not experience joy. The darkest times of life for most believers are times of disobedience because there is a lack of joy in their lives even in the midst of positive circumstances. The most joyful times in life can actually be when we triumph in faith during the most difficult and oppressive times. If we want to experience the “supernatural joy life,” then we must walk in obedience, resting in God all the while. When we put our confidence in God and choose to have His joy, we will experience that unspeakably wonderful “gift of the Spirit” – JOY. His joy can be experienced at this very moment in your life – regardless of circumstances – if you will walk in faith and obedience (again, more on that later).

It was the prophet Nehemiah who said, “The joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh 8:10). To appre-ciate what this means we must understand the context in which these words were stated. The Israelites had just returned from Babylon after having spent seventy years in exile… under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah the Jewish people rebuilt Jerusalem’s ruined walls, and now they set their sights on re-establishing the temple and restoring the nation. Though they were no longer being held captive in Babylon, “they were still slaves to those who were governing the land God had given to them” (Neh 9:36). The Jewish remnant who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, in large part were ignorant of their spirit-ual heritage due to their captivity; furthermore they had forgotten their native language; and above all, they had lived in sin and had forgotten God. Nehemiah called a “special meeting” in the middle of the city — altogether about 50,000 people attended. Ezra the priest was asked to read the book of the Law of Moses to the assembly — he read it aloud from daybreak until noon, and the Word of God spoke in a profound way to the hearts of the people, and for the first time they were made aware of their sinful-ness before God. The people learned that Jeremiah had prophesied the very destruction that they had suffered, yet in the same breath Jeremiah gave them a promise that their mourning would turn to a morning of joy — God would bring them back to their land seventy years later. Ezra read, “Behold,” says the Lord, “I will gather My people from the remote parts of the earth… a great company shall return here… they shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them… for I am a father to Israel” (Jer 31:8-9). The people experienced the relevancy of the message — they were made aware of the connection between the sins of their own hearts and their distressful situation, and they saw that their slavery was the result of their own sin. As they stood there mourning over their sins, they understood the message of salvation… it was not a message of “I told you so” or “you should have known better” or “look what a mess you have made of your lives”… instead they are told to “Go and enjoy choice food and drinks, for this day is sacred to the Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the Lord is your strength!” “Then all the people went away to eat and drink and celebrate with great joy, because they now under-stood the words that had been made known to them” (Neh 8:9-12). This day was sacred to the Lord — it was the joy of the Lord that made this such a sacred day… God had deliberately led them to this moment in time… it wasn’t a day of good fortune or good luck… it was the joyful day of the Lord! The people were told “not to grieve” — “God’s anger is but for a moment; whereas His favor lasts a life-time” (Ps 30:4-5). When the Word of God was opened and read to them, the people began to understand themselves and the need to change their minds about the way they were living. And like them, if we listen, it will also bring us to a “mourning of joy.” When we set our hearts to obey God’sWord, the Lord Himself causes us to rejoice — “God had made them rejoice with great joy” (Neh 12:43). On the eighth day according to the Law there was an assembly of all the people… they gathered together for a great day of national confession… with fasting and mourning, they listened to the reading of the Law for three hours… and then for three more hours they confessed their sins and those of their fathers and worshipped the LORD their God (Neh 9:1-3). The people responded to the reading of the Law thus: “Because of our sins… we are in great distress” (Neh 9:37). Their confession was accompanied by great remorse… they understood their terrible condition as they journeyed back to God… but more importantly, they understood God’s joyous message of salvation, and at that they burst out in praise! Then said Nehemiah to the people, “This day is holy to the Lord your God… do not mourn or weep… rather, go eat and drink…. DO NOT GRIEVE, FOR THE JOY OF THE LORD IS YOUR STRENGTH!” (Neh 8:9-10). NOTE CAREFULLY it is “the Lord’s joy” that is our strength… it “the Lord’s joy” that gives us reason to rejoice… it is “the Lord’s joy” that fills us with hope. It is God's happiness that is our strength!!! It is not anything that we have done that is our hope, joy or strength! Furthermore, it is not God’s anger, wrath or holiness that is our strength! IT IS “GOD’S JOY” THAT IS OUR STRENGTH!! NOT OUR JOY!! GOD’S JOY!! IT IS THE “LORD’S JOYOUS WISH” TO SAVE US FROM OUR SINS — AND THAT IS OUR STRENGTH and ENERGY and VITALITY! It is GOD’S JOY to stand us back up on our feet and strengthen our feeble legs & wobbly knees so that we might discover that HIS JOY IS OUR STRENGTH! It is the “joy of the Lord” that remains our strength today! REMEMBER, IT IS “GOD’S JOY” TO SAVE YOU!!! His faithfulness continues throughout all generations! Our response should be to commit our lives to Him for joyfully wanting to save us! It is incredible to realize that no matter how bad things get for us, GOD’S JOY will forever be our hope and strength! James clearly has victory over trials in mind, not mere acceptance of one’s trials. It is “joy” that gives us the strength to fight and overcome our trials. Joy gives us the strength to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim 6:12). Spiritual joy has a way of infusing strength into our being! If you are tired of fighting the battle it is because your problems seem too much for you — you have lost your joy, and have rightly concluded that the fight is too great for you. Paul said, “Rejoice in the Lord always!” (Phil 4:4). You are to always rejoice in the Lord — you can’t live off of the joy you had yesterday or last week — that joy will not give you strength today. Joy can only give you strength in the moment… it can only give you strength when you possess it. The time to rejoice is always “now” — if you don’t rejoice, you will lose the strength to fight. I love this verse in Habakkak — “Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crops fail and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, YET I WILL REJOICE IN THE LORD; I will be joyful in God my Savior” (Hab 3:17-18). He is going to REJOICE because “the God of his salvation is his strength; He makes his feet like the feet of a deer, and enables him to walk on high places” (Hab 3:19). Habakkuk had no intention of staying defeated. The difference between the person who is defeated and the person who is victorious is his attitude toward God. An attitude of gratitude is what made the difference in the prophet’s life. Even though nothing good was happening in his life – no fruit, no crops, no sheep, no cattle – yet he rejoiced! Though our lives are filled with trials, we are also to rejoice! Regardless of our circumstances, we can rejoice! Reflect upon the words of the prophetic Isaiah: “Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; for the Lord God is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation. Therefore I will joyously draw water from the springs of salvation” (Is 12:2-3). Notice what this Scripture says: “with joy you will draw water from the springs of salvation.” It is joy that keeps you strong and enables you to draw from the springs of salvation. Our English word “happiness” comes from the old Norse word “happ” — this is the same word from which we get our word “happen;” thus happiness is based on what happens to us. So the argument goes like this: if something good is happening, we are happy…if something bad is happening, we are sad. Though that is a fairly accurate understanding of the word “happiness,” that alone is not the only meaning of the word. The word “happy” can also be used to subjectively describe the believer’s joy (Prv 3:18; 29:18; Mt 5:3-12), which is not necessarily dependent upon what “happens” to him. Though some believers have insisted on applying “happy feelings” only to circumstances, and have objected to the use of the word “happy” when translating the beatitudes of Matt 5, that is not what Scripture teaches. Just because the derivation of the word “happy” in English has its orientation in “happ,” does not necessarily limit its usage as such, as any modern dictionary will attest. Scripture tells us that we can indeed be “happy” even in the midst of pain and suffering. Thus to insist that “spiritual joy” and “spiritual happiness” are not equivalents is to engage in meaningless contrarieties that only serve to confuse the reader. — to be anxious is to be joyless. The believer can experience a deep abiding peace and joy in his life regardless of circumstances… he can experience elation that transcends his circumstances… and experience that which is highly pleasing and pleasant in the midst of difficulties and trials — all these emotions are “felt” experiences. When the believer experiences a joyful happiness, there is an absence of anxiety, tension and want in his soul; conversely, when the believer is in a “state of want,” that longing produces a disquieting unrest in his soul, so instead of being at peace and satisfied, he is anxious and restless.

 

www.thetransformedsoul.com/additional-studies/spiritual-l...

having a bit of an argument.

IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.

All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.

 

For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.

A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.

Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.

Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.

 

IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.

Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.

In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.

Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.

 

For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.

Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.

 

However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.

Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.

The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.

In other words:

All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.

All natural entities have a beginning.

And all natural entities are subject to entropy.

Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.

 

But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.

We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.

The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.

An effect cannot be greater than its cause.

So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.

That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.

 

It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.

Crucially ...

An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.

The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?

A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.

 

Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.

Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

 

Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).

Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.

Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.

Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.

 

So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.

Consequently ...

If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.

If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.

And...

If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.

If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.

 

Conclusion:

The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.

No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!

The Bible correctly declares:

Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.

 

Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.

 

Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.

It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.

 

All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.

The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.

The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

  

The poison in our midst - progressive politics.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/47971464278

and drank some more

I will give a few arguments ✅ FOR.

📍Photography increases self-esteem, helps to gain self-confidence, psychologically unload, overcome complexes and tightness

📍Thanks to the pictures, a person learns to feel himself both internally and from the outside, photography allows you to show yourself and your individuality

📍There are moments that will never happen again: a wedding, the birth of children, graduation… How nice it will be to remember the vivid emotions from these events years later

📍If you are advertising a brand or product, then a photo is the main tool for attracting attention

⠀

📣 What other advantages are there?

Write comments, add to the list.

⠀

#photoshootmoscow #newyearsphotoshootmoscow #fotografnameropriytie #fotodenmoscow #NikonD800 #safronoviv_photo

Passerini's and Palm Tanagers

Feeder shot at Lost Iguana, Costa Rica

The story you're about to read is based on a real event. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. Locations have been changed to protect the curious.

  

The three friends sat at the roadside diner table, simultaneously yawning.

 

"Okay, that's it," announced Erebus. "I'm going to be the voice of reason and say we throw in the towel for the night."

 

"C'mon it's -- only -- sixty-ish mi-- miles," Teddi's argument devolved into another huge yawn. "Yeah, okay, I'll find a campground."

 

"No, no, no," Seth complained. "Not out here, in the middle of banjoland nowhere. That never works out for us."

 

"It's not like we're going to find a Hilton, honey," Teddi commiserated.

 

A redhead in the booth behind them piped up. "Maybe not a Hilton, but there's a little place about two miles up Highway 2 that's not bad." She left her booth, coming around to the end of their table. "It's cheap, but it's clean. My sister, Bonnie works the front desk." She pointed at the name plate on her waitress uniform. "I'm Connie. You tell her I sent you and told her to give you the best rooms she's got." She gave them a big smile and a little wave. "Be safe out there." Then she left the diner.

 

"We can just grab a campsite and crash for a few hours then head out again," Erebus reasoned.

 

"But showers, and big beds, and cable--"

 

"Oh, my," Teddi interrupted Seth's whine.

 

"Meanie," Seth pouted.

 

"No, I was talking about the nearest campground. We should definitely check it out! Look!" Teddi enthused, holding out her phone toward the guys. "It's by a lake, and it looks super clean, and there's a museum!" Her eyes twinkled.

 

"One of those little roadside attraction things?" asked Erebus, taking her phone and flipping through the images. "That could be fun."

 

"Save me from quaint--" Seth began.

 

"But Seth's right. Let's grab a place where we can shower and fall asleep watching reruns," Erebus interrupted, handing the phone back to Teddi.

 

"Two against one, and the lady pays for dinner," Seth celebrated.

 

"Boys suck," Teddi pouted, leaving the table to pay at the cash register.

 

"Some do, some don't," Seth agreed, smiling at Erebus. "So, why did Daddy vote my way?"

 

"I'm not your daddy, and I saw what kind of museum it has," Erebus replied, lowering his voice. "It's for Native American artifacts."

 

Seth frowned. "You have a problem with Native American artifacts?" He gasped comically, and his eyebrows raised. "Daddy, are you racist?"

 

Erebus eyed him with a helter-skelter stare. "The artifacts are from the area," he explained. "Because there's a legend that there was an Indian burial ground somewhere by the lake."

 

"I promise to be a good boy for the rest of the night," Seth promised, crossing his heart. "You're my hero."

 

"You're making him soft," Teddi complained, hearing the last thing Seth said, as she returned to the table. "Let's go get the two of you tucked into your comfy hotel rooms. I sure hope they have courtesy blow dryers for you." She sauntered away and the two men followed, smiling.

 

Only a few minutes later, Seth exclaimed, "There's the sign!" He pointed to the right side of the dark road and Erebus slowed the car, turning off the road.

 

"Why isn't the sign on?" Erebus wondered. "I almost missed it."

 

"They might have forgotten," Teddi suggested. "Sometime you think you do a thing, but you didn't do a thing. We can let them know when we check in."

 

"Oh, well this isn't too bad," Seth observed, as they rolled into the sparsely occupied lot of a small, but tidy, single story hotel. "Looks like they might have a lighting issue in general," he joked, pointing at the sign over the office that said, HIGHWAY 2 HOTEL, but the O and T were burned out.

 

After parking at the office, they exited the car, stretching. "Just get two rooms," Erebus called after Teddi, who was bouncing toward the office. "We need to save money."

 

In reply, without looking back, Teddi waved two fingers above her head to indicate she heard him. The office turned out to be more brightly lighted than it appeared from outside, due to the blinds being closed, and Teddi was glancing around the clean little space when a redhead came out of the back office.

 

"Connie?" she questioned, surprised.

 

The redhead beamed as Erebus and Seth entered the office. "Hello. No, my name is, Bonnie, but it sounds like you met my twin sister. And from the way you're all looking at me, I'm betting she didn't tell you we're twins." She laughed lightly. "I don't know if she does that because she doesn't think it matters, or she likes playing jokes on folks."

 

"You're right, she didn't tell us," Erebus agreed.

 

"Connie said we should mention that she sent us--" Seth began.

 

"And I'm supposed to give you the best rooms I've got, right?" Bonnie laughed again. "Well, all the rooms are identical so I guess they're all the best I've got. The good thing about that is, they're all pretty nice." She pointed at an open register. "Go ahead and sign in. How many rooms do you need?"

 

"Two," Erebus told her, and Teddi held up two fingers.

 

Each of them took turns signing in. "And who gets the keys?" Bonnie asked.

 

"One for me, and one for them," Teddi chirped.

 

"Here you go," Bonnie slid a key to Teddi and one to Seth. "Now comes the tricky part, I hope you nice folks carry cash or checks, because our machine is down. Some kind of weird power problem in the area.

 

"Oh, I was going to mention, your road sign is off," Teddi told her, looking in her wallet for cash.

 

"It's on," Bonnie said. "It's just the power glitch. Boyd, down at Public Works, said they'd see about it tomorrow. Probably got all the customers I'm going to get tonight, anyway."

 

After paying Bonnie with communal cash, the trio bid her good night and parked the car in front of the room where Teddi was staying, the guys had the room right next door. They all looked inside Teddi's room and the consensus was that it was spartan, but clean, and just fine for an overnighter. They agreed upon a time to hit the road, parting company for the night.

 

Teddi showered (briefly noting there was no bathroom door and assuming that, since it was a single room, who was going to be embarrassed), changed into a t-shirt and gym shorts, settling in to watch late night talk shows until she fell asleep, grinning now and then at the comical banter of the guys, in their room. She hoped they didn't annoy the other people occupying rooms on the opposite side of theirs. As things quieted down and Teddi settled back to sleep, something disturbing happened.

 

Drip. Drip. Drip.

 

She opened her eyes, staring at the ceiling.

 

Drip. Drip. Drip.

 

She turned her head, looking at the dark rectangle of the bathroom doorway.

 

Drip. Drip. Drip.

 

She sighed, getting up and slipping on her flip flops, going into the bathroom to check on the leak.

 

Drip. Drip. Drip. It was in the shower, the tile walls amplifying the sound. She fiddled with knobs, the shower head, and nearly asked Erebus to come take a look, but the silence from their room suggested they were already asleep. She finally folded the towel she'd used into a thick square, setting it under where the drops were landing. The drips became plips and she was satisfied they wouldn't wake her. She went back to bed.

 

Splat. Splat. Splat.

 

Teddi woke and glanced at her phone. It was just past midnight. She'd dozed off during a late show, and for some reason, the TV was off. She fiddled with the remote, but it wouldn't turn on. She sighed and got up, going into the bathroom.

 

Splat. Splat. Splat. The towel in the shower was completely waterlogged, the drops raining into a towel swamp. Splat. Splat. Splat.

 

"You win," she told the shower, changing into sweatpants and a sweatshirt, taking one of the pillows, her phone, and her purse, and going out to the car. She quietly got into the back seat, closing the door so that it made the faintest click, locked it, then made herself comfortable for the night.

 

Whispering. The sound of shoes on concrete.

 

Teddi woke up, reaching down to her phone, on the floorboards, poking it and seeing it was nearly two A.M. What had wakened her? Then she heard it, whispers, and footsteps clearly trying to be sneaky. The only reason she'd heard them was because her windows were cracked to prevent the glass from fogging up, revealing the car had an occupant. She slowly raised her head from the pillow, looking out the side windows then catching movement between the car and her hotel room door.

 

Bonnie was standing outside the door whispering with two large men. Each man carried a duffel bag, and one held out a fat manila envelope to Bonnie. She took the envelope then used a master key to unlock the door to the room where Teddi was supposed to be sleeping, walking away!

 

Peeking over the back seat, Teddi watched the men enter her room, and a moment later they hurried out, chasing down Bonnie, whispering loudly to her while she tried to quiet them. Teddi heard part of what Bonnie told the men.

 

"--must be with those guys," as she gestured toward the room shared by Erebus and Seth.

 

The men seemed aggravated, and the trio went into Bonnie's office.

 

Teddi turned off the interior light of the car before cautiously opening a door, slipping out, leaving it ajar, and sneaking to the room where Erebus and Seth slept. She tapped on the door, getting no response. She texted Seth, Bad men here. We need to RUN! And after a moment she heard Whitney Houston, inside the room, belt out, "And Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii eeIiiiii will always love youuuuu!"

 

"Are you serious?" came Erebus' sleepy, annoyed voice. "Put that thing on vibrate!"

 

"It's from Teddi," Seth told him, clearly yawning.

 

Teddi began frantically tapping on the door again, trying to keep it quiet enough not to alert Bonnie, or the men with her.

 

"What's it say -- who's at the door? Where are you going?" Erebus' questions followed what was happening inside the room and Seth suddenly yanked open the door, Teddi shoving him back inside, closing and locking the door behind her.

 

"Look at my face! No time to explain. Grab your stuff and we need to run!" she told them.

 

Nearly an hour later, huddled together in an office in the nearest small town, the three friends sipped coffee, watching as officers passed the window, glancing in at them, talking, dispersing, returning, and finally the sheriff entered the room.

 

"Well, we believe your story," he said to Teddi.

 

"Did you get them?" she asked.

 

"No, there was nobody there when we got there," he told her. They had a generator hooked up for the lights, and they were stealing cable, that's why you had TV to watch, but there were only two rooms set up for tourists.

 

"But, all the cars," Seth remarked.

 

"Yeah, we're running the plates," said the sheriff. "None of the other rooms were occupied."

 

"What about Bonnie, and her sister, Connie, the waitress from the diner?" asked Erebus.

 

"Sorry, but that diner's run by Jim and Cathy Nelson, nice folks," the sheriff told Erebus. Cathy remembers a redhead dropping in now and then, dressed like a waitress, and just figured she worked in town and stopped in on her way to or from work. Never regular enough to get familiar with her, y'know."

 

"So, she and her sister set us up for -- what? A robbery?" Seth suggested.

 

"I don't think there were two women," the sheriff said. "I think this one woman, whatever her name really is, pretended to be Connie, then Bonnie. You were set up, but I don't think it was for robbery," he didn't finish, glancing at Teddi.

 

"Oh, my god! You think they were going to kidnap Mommy?" exclaimed Seth.

 

"Mommy?" the sheriff asked.

 

"Inside joke," said Erebus, slipping an arm around Teddi's shoulders.

 

"They went to Ms. Beres' room, probably paid to go in --" the sheriff broke off. "I don't know what they planned, but it's a good thing you weren't in there when they showed up," he told Teddi. "The three of you can go. We've got your information. I'll be in touch, when we have anything to tell you."

 

After the sheriff left, Teddi looked at Erebus. "I guess that sign was right after all."

 

"What?" asked Erebus.

 

"With the burned out O and T...that made it the HWY 2 HEL." They all looked around at each other.

  

Time passed, the redhead and the men were never found. The cars belonged to people who'd been reported missing, but no one ever found their bodies.

So, be careful out there. And if someone suggests a nice place to stay, just off the main highway, have another cup of coffee, and keep driving.

 

(Thank you to Bailey for making me look cute, and scared, and thank you to Erebus and Seth for helping me with the horror.)

Taken at Teddi Towne, where summer is truly endless. Tourists are welcome.

maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Hawaiian%20Islands/196/236/21

My girlfriend and I would like to "tie the knot". We're Americans. We work and pay taxes; support our community. We have a small home and a happy dog. We have friends and family. We're good people. So when can we get married? I mean legally, like everyone else. Like EVERYONE else???

 

I was saddened today when I learned that the state of New York ruled against gay marriage. Georgia was no big surprise, but New York?? Besides LA, Atlanta, Chicago and a handful of other big American cities, isn't New York where all the gays live? Or is that just Manhattan? I wonder what would have happened if the Manhattan city council had voted today??

 

Why is marriage so taboo? Can anyone tell me? Beyond all the Christian rhetoric? Can anyone really explain to me why I can't legally marry the person I love?

 

CBS online news has done a really great job reporting on the Gay Marriage controversy. Click here to view their interactive articles.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/06/national/main1780213.s...

 

Reprinted below is an article about the rulings.

 

And for the record: WHATEVER NEW YORK!? Shame on you! I'm still going to marry the woman I love. F all y'all!

  

cc

 

Twin Defeats For Gay Marriage

Top Courts In New York, Georgia Rule Against Same-Sex Marriage

 

New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights.

 

Hours later, the Georgia state Supreme Court reinstated that state's constitutional ban on gay marriage. It reversed a lower court judge's ruling, deciding unanimously that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. Seventy-six percent of Georgia voters approved the ban when it was on the ballot in 2004.

 

New York's Court of Appeals, in a 4-2 decision, said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman.

 

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said.

 

"We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Smith wrote.

 

Gov. George Pataki's health department and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office had argued New York law prohibits issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The state had prevailed in lower appeals courts.

 

"It's a sad day for New York families," said plaintiff Kathy Burke of Schenectady, who is raising an 11-year-old son with her partner, Tonja Alvis. "My family deserves the same protections as my next door neighbors."

 

The judges declined to follow the lead of high court judges in neighboring Massachusetts, who ruled that same-sex couples in that state have the same right to wed as straight couples.

 

The four cases decided Thursday were filed two years ago when the Massachusetts decision helped usher in a series of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco.

 

With little hope of getting a gay marriage bill signed into law in Albany, advocates from the ACLU, Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups marshaled forces for a court fight. Forty-four couples acted as plaintiffs in the suits, including the brother of comedian Rosie O'Donnell and his longtime partner.

 

Plaintiff Regina Cicchetti said she was "devastated" by the ruling. But the Port Jervis resident said she and her partner of 36 years, Susan Zimmer, would fight on, probably by lobbying the Legislature for a change in the law.

 

"We haven't given up," she said. "We're in this for the long haul. If we can't get it done for us, we'll get it done for the people behind us."

 

In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers.

 

Kaye noted that a number of bills allowing same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, but none has ever made it out of committee.

 

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation," she wrote. "The court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

 

Judge Albert Rosenblatt, whose daughter has advocated for same-sex couples in California, did not take part in the decision.

 

Since the Massachusetts ruling, about a dozen states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, and 19 now outlaw it. There is now a push in Massachusetts for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

 

A federal lawsuit filed over California's refusal to grant a marriage license to a gay couple reached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May. The court, however, sidestepped the question of whether it was unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, leaving the issue to state courts to decide.

 

Foggy Bottom - Washington, DC

 

This photo featured in the DCist blog.

What would life be without music?

The world would be a very quiet place. Music is in many ways the fabric of our lives and the definition of society.

Music has had a very strong impact on my life. I have been brought up in a musical environment. My parents are great musicians and my idols. Musical melodies bound my family together. I believe that music has healing powers. If we had arguments or family problems, we used to sit together, sing, dance and spend a musical evening. These musical evenings are embedded in my soul as beautiful memories. I dedicate this project to those precious moments.

In this project, I desire to emphasize that common men, women and children practise the art of music besides their daily routine work. Firstly It seems in recent years being busy has become the rule rather than the exception. Anywhere you go you would find people who have no time for themselves and therefore no time for exploring their musical talents.

Secondly in India we do not really appreciate careers in the unconventional fields of music and arts. The mindset of parents and society is such that it does not allow such talents to come out. They want their children to grow up to be either doctors or engineers. Any field in which the future is uncertain or risky is strongly discouraged.

The fact remains that there are so many people who are very talented but are either not able to explore their talent or not able to use it. It is due to this reason that these people go unheard.

However there are people who fight against all odds to follow their dreams. They take time out from their busy schedules be it their work or studies to practise music. Through this project I would like the highlight and bring to limelight the hidden musical talent in people; people who obey Shakespeare when he says, “If music be the food of love, play on...!”

 

The other photographs related to this project will be published as part of a book... The preview can be seen in my facebook profile...

 

model: Abhilash Sudhindran

musical instrument: flute

profession: student @NID

“Better than any argument is to rise at dawn and pick dew-wet red berries in a cup.”

~Wendell Berry

  

For my Flickr groups, friends, contacts…

 

The Server.

Imperceptive fruits on thy plate ,astonishing disillusioned appetite fell,

unthreatened smuggish solipsistic menu served unacceptable pleasures of lies,

thy aesthetic indiscriminate taste forth,simultaneously suspiciously cherished wallet missing hence,

equilibrium shall be restore with a gentleman's consequence smack reigns,

on thous O' so befallen face, a justice shower,

thy sever seen your likes patronized before, and shall see them many a times fold,

thou with transparence airs, thous wits and courage so effulgently bold,

to eat partake without thy funds on thy immediate self,'tis a hollow quench,

thy server dissatisfaction voice points ,future carcass dost thy pay,to a weeping aray,

convulsively knowing thy make was made,considerable struggles amid thy cries,

arguments hammer in thee infinite condemning atmosphere,immense thee wrath of reproaching fire,

thou shall feel thy full weight of thy zodiacal centrifugal power inflamed,

thy server, thy might, thy are one, in thy watchful vicinity of speaking barren woe,

barometer of thy ballast ways measures atop,,moderation isn't a degree unequalled convictions rage,

O' ruffled soul, breathing discrepancy of dues,

thy server shall serve thou a special spontaneous treat on 'tis a O' so special of a day,

thy treat I speak,thee name it bears, 'tis be a burning hemisphere of fulgent volcanic diminutive ash,

with thous arse on thy approaching self evident of tormenting disdaining midst,

next time bring thy coin and know thee price,

before thy orders from (The Server),

thou may not be able to sly!

Steve.D.Hammond.

Arguments Yard Whitby named after Thomas Argument who built a cottage on Church street, the back garden running down to the harbourside