Shot

Dirty Fractyl
2002-05-15 13:20:39 (UTC)

Unsacred Doctrines, Mutation - Telepathy

M
Mutation

Mutation is the mechanism which faithfully abides
to natural selection, as a worker ant to its queen.. -
-Brett David Roberts

Mutation, being a somewhat misunderstood concept,
should be given its fair justice for the evolution of all
life on this planet. It is caused by error, hence its
ungrasped mechanisms and implications. Mutations,
generally speaking, occur from an illiterate tRNA molecule,
which either slips and misreads a sequence on a gene, in
its reading of the ‘words,’ the three ‘letter’ (A, T, G, C;
adenine, thiomene, guanine, and cytosine, respetively) long
protein encoding directions, or skips an entire ‘word.’
First of all, keep in mind, there are three results
of a mutation: a) a mutation which causes no noticable
changes whatsoever, or changes that have no affect on its
ability to thrive; b) a mutation which harms the organism
and causes ill effects with respect to its survival or
reproductive capabilities, or both; and c) and a mutation
which benefits the organism by enhancing its ability to
thrive in its environment moreso than those organisms
without the mutation. The most common is the first; most
mutations end up having no affect at all. Those which
harm, are eventually removed from the population over the
interval in which natural selection solves this problem,
causing the weakest of the group to repopulate their seed
the most, and eventually their line will die out.
The most commonly used and easily understood
example of mutation, or of natural selection acting rather,
is that of the moths found in England during the industrial
revolution of its country side. A species of moth existed
in the nearby forests, which bore two variations in color,
which were a crucial element in the moth’s ability to
survive due to the implications the coloration had on the
moth’s ability to blend in with its surroundings. In a
forest of white trunked birch trees, the white variation
was the most common prior to the existance of the factories
which later proliferated the surrounding areas of the
country side as the early 1900’s progressed. Later, as the
polluting exhaust of the factories discolored the trees to
a pale black, caused by the soot emitted from the burning
of coal, the black colored moths began to become dominant,
causing what is known by evolutionists as a “bottleneck,” a
quick shift in the genes to accomidate a rapid change in
the environment. The white moths did still exist, and were
not entirely outbreeded from the population, but their
white coloration made it more difficult to thrive in the
polluted forest as their coloration now made them more
visable to the predating birds of the area. The mutation,
or variation within the species which was harmful to begin
with, became a positive mutation that aided the species in
survival. Had the mutation in the genes never occured
prior to the pollution, the species would have either
become extinct, or extremely rare, but mutation enabled the
moth to progress evolutionarily.

And continuing with these beneficial mutations,
which evolutinary opponents contend to not exist, are
abundant throughout nature, including those within us
humans ourselves:

1) Development of a thumb, which allows us to
grasp objects rather than the curved and straight fingers
of our primate cousins that have advantages when
swinging from branches.

2) Bi Pedalism which allows us to run quickly over
flat terrain, which was allowed by the following
mutations:

a) Higher bone density in neck muscles, allowing
Homo sapiens to hold their heads up right, opposed
to horizontally like the great apes.

b) Orientation of the femur bone in such a way as
to proport forward motion with minimal horizontal
movement, as seen in the chimpanzees awkward gait.

c) The curving of a spine to allow for the torso to
remain in an upright position (though this adaptation in
the least complete, in the sense that it is not perfect and
back problems, as referred to by many, run rampant
through Homo sapiens).

3) Mutation of the gene which allows for the
lactase producing protein to be contined to be
produced into adulthood. (Originally, all adults were
intolerant to milk; it is a muatation of that gene that
allows milk drinkers that can tolerate lactose into
adulthood by continuing to produce lactase, the catalyst
responsible for the breaking down of lactose, to
tolerate it today).

Moving away from humans, there are obviously more
examples, but some of the most readily available include:

1) The random mutation in chemical ammunity to
pesticides by household insects such as termites,
ants, and especially, cock roaches--this includes
the “palmetto bug” variety indigenous to the Southeastern
U.S.

2) The vestigal structures found in so many
organisms’ skeletons (i.e., those that show that the snake
lost its feet in an attempt to move even more quickly over
its terrain).

3) Homologous structures between members of the
same class (i.e., In mammals, the hand-like structures we
share with whales and dolphins, whose fin bones are
arranged similarly to our hands).

4) The similarities shared by rodents, and us,
distantly related mammals, in appearance. However,
rodents are the grandparents of all modern mammals and
make a good test subject for all mammals,
especially since they are much cheaper and quickly
reproducing, than the alternative, chimpanzees, who are
treated like royalty in the world of Animal Testing’s
Ethics. These ethics are, however, violated
consistently and are difficult to enforce due to the power
and inguity of those that pursue such ventures.

5) Reptile scales differentiated into frayings,
which continued to fray further in extreme mutants, a
mutation which had no effect and continued to worsen slowly
over time as it began to aid as a form of
maintaining a lighter body weight as a means for escape.
This eventually led these mutant reptiles into higher
altitudes. At this point the scales continued to
shrink due to natural selection proving that the more
frayed, and rounded, the better, working in an exclusively
integrated pair, as the differentiated into
feathers, and the reptiles took flight, becoming the first
birds.
These birds, much larger than todays, are
very similar, but not exactly like an ostrich or an
emu. Their large stature renders their eye larger than
their brain, which lends a little insight into the
brain: body ratio equation, a definite index of
intelligence both inter and intraspecies.
This is a theory. The other held for this
phenomenon is known as “punctional evolution,” which
basically states that evolution takes leaps and that
transition states are rare. Change is quick,
ruthless, and cold, leaving little evidence in the
fossil record that any “transition” occured. To no good
biologist should this theory hold valid. Everything
known about the mechanism of natural selection leads us
to believe it is a slow process. Change occurs, but it
occurs slowly, and it is a mathematical impossibility
that the same wide-spread mutation would occur on the
same gene simultaneously throughout a non-breeding
population (as it would were the mutation to occur in a
rapid, transitional-less state). To conjecture so is to
know nothing of the true workings of an ecological
model’s projection of a community’s interaction; this
theory disregards the basic principles and understandings
biologists have of nature. In short, it is nothing more
than an excuse by a poor biologist unable to provide
answers for what the fossil record lacks.

But what is the theory, purpose, and lesson of this
discussion and of these examples of evolution? Why labor
on examples; why continue to stab the dead horse with a
bludgeon? As stated in the opening of this discussion,
mutation is misunderstood. It is the nombratic equivalent
of killing every shark one encounters just because a man
has been killed by a shark before. Mutations do not harm
organisms ordinarily, though they can, and are done a huge
disservice by the layman and his misunderstanding of their
purpose. Mutations are what has allowed our species to
progress to the point it has--and the same statement can be
applied to all organisms that inhabit the world with us
today. Argueably, there has never been a more
misunderstood scientific concept.

N
Numbers

Long before man began to derive a system of
marcation and counting, numbers, math was a principal
addition to the vocabulary of intelligence. One may
speculate that from the beginning of a well-developed pre-
Homo sapien brain, that a concept of numbers and groups was
formed within the brain. It would be the first concept
needed to begin to trade, as man would be required to both
understand his dealings, and keep inventory of his
possessions and commodities to ensure he understood exactly
what he had, what he traded; and to ensure no one had stole
from his bank of goods. And so, I conjecture, from this
began the use of numerical concepts. The actual numbers
themselves would soon follow accordingly. This theory is
based on the remarkable experiments with chimpanzees, which
have proven that they are able to count--and from this,
understand numbers, and even learn the symbols that we all
use today for each number.
Dating back to the earliest recorded histories we
have available to study, man’s use of math is readily
available, even taught today in numerous cases. From
Archimedes, Euclid, and Pythagorus, three early Greek
mathematicians, we are able to understand their proofs,
equations, and formulas as easily as we could understand
them had they been written in this decade. Why is this?
It is a simple reality: math is the universal language.
Math is what belies each spoken word, each action taken; it
literally underwrites the coding of the entire universe.
However, this section is not to be written with
emphasis on mathematical concepts, though these concepts
will undoubtedly be mentioned as it proceeds, but rather to
speak of the actual numbers themselves, and their
properties, a science that was coined and perfected by
Euler, the first number theorist that enjoyed success and
left theories that are applicable and still used today in
number theory.
Number theory, in a hastily short definition, is
the understanding of numerical patterns, sequences, and
relationships that allow for quicker calculations regarding
numerical series, by eliminating steps and supplanting them
with a full understanding the underlying relationships
between the actual numbers themselves. First, to
understand number theories, it is essential to understand
that there truly are only ten numbers to begin with (this
includes zero): 1 through 9. All numbers that exist beyond
these numbers are mere multiples of the smaller numbers
between one and nine (ten could be said to be a part of
this rule, but it is superflous to it, if considered
properly).
As with almost all rules, however, though, there is
an exception to this rule, as well, which mystifies anyone
with a love of math, prime numbers. Prime numbers, for
those not well-versed in mathematics, are numbers that have
no multiples other than themselves and one; they are not
composed of smaller multiples. The other day, while making
calls during my telemarketing job, I was calculating the
squares of all prime numbers in my head. I had reached
well over 200 and remain assured that the trend I noticed
persists for all prime numbers to follow. Every prime
number’s square, with one exception (!), five, ends in
either a 1 or a 9. Finding relationships within these
mathematical abberants, prime numbers, fascinates me beyond
belief (However, this may end up becoming an essay in
itself after some research in solitude, without books, so
as that I may obtain these concepts on my own, rather than
drawing from the work of past mathematicians. Sometimes
research cheates one in the process of learning. In any
case, the topic will be only mentioned right now).
Examples of numerical patterns exist althroughout
nature, almost too numerous to count, so I shall focus on
only a few in this section, to belabor the point that this
section is going to make, that numbers are quincessential
concepts that existed prior to man, not even true
constructs of man (as time is); they hold the coding of
nature and are always open books towards understanding the
world around us. Perhaps someday, man will even be able to
forecast the weather far ahead of time, although this
requires a supreme knowledge of chaos theory and an ability
to know each interaction between interlocking meteorogical
systems simultaneously, so we may still be far off. Even
perfected as a model, it still may be only capable of
providing percentages of occurances, but with far more
accuracy than used and applied today. But, no stalling
further, here are some examples of numerical applications
found within nature:

1) Fibronucci numbers.

Fibronucci numbers are numbers which manifest
themselves in patterns throughout nature, and follow an
irregular pattern: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11...These numbers are
the seemingly arbitrary pattern (We, as humans, know better
than to deem anything that nature herself designs as
arbitrary) by which nature has selected to use as the
backbone of its blueprint for all organisms. The most
readily apparent example is in flower petals. Without the
aid of a diagram or photograph, these petals exist with
arrangements that follow the pattern Fibronucci discovered;
that is, they are able to have 3 petals, 5 petals, 7
petals, any number--or combination arranged geometrically--
of Fibronucci’s numbers. The stamens and pistils, stemming
from the same center and orientated to the petals of the
flower, obviously follow the same principle. These
examples exist in other systems as well, but flower petals
are the easiest to provide a simply understood example of.

2) “Spherical Condensation Theory”
(Do not attempt to search textbooks for this
theory by name!)

After globular clusters differentiate, they seek
the lowest energy state possible due to the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, and do so in accordance with Newton’s Laws
of Motion. Moreover, the particles must abide by the laws
of gravity to achieve stability within their surroundings.
In the case of a solar system, using our own as a measure
of observation, this results in spherical condensations,
specifically nine planets and a sun--all spheres.
Why a sphere? Why not a sphere with eccentricity,
an oval? Why not a cube? Or even a cylinder? These
objects are certainly found throughout nature you may tell
me. Eggs are ovular. Tree trunks are cylindric. Crystals
are often cubes. It is relatively simple to ascertain why
these large collections of mass end up culminating in
spheres in eventuality, and it relates to an easy to follow
and simple concept: spheres provide maximal volume with
minimal surface area, and these large bodies of mass are
subjected to a much larger gravitational force than the
previous objects mentioned. The implications this has with
regard to following Newton’s Laws of gravitation is
relatively easy to follow as well. The Law of Universal
Gravitiation is as follows:

Force of attraction = Gravity x (mass obj 1 x
mass obj 2) / distance squared

While the spherical orientation of an object does
not reduce its mass, it does nicely submit itself to
gravity--or rather, allows the force of gravity to mold it
to minimize its area, which is what a sphere does, while
retaining all of its volume; and accordingly, its mass. It
affectively has minimized the affect of gravity on itself
by allowing the gravity to act on a smaller surface area,
and causing itself to form a dense sphere, or what I refer
to as the sphere condensation (a term you will find in no
text book whatsoever primarily because physics bores the
hell out of me and I have never really opened a physics
text book and left it open at length, yet still do
understand it simply because it is a surrounding and
principle science to which we are subjected daily).

3) Pi, 3.14159...

While pi has been applied to stellar relationships,
and the reasoning is relatively simple to understand in the
sense that if matter is viewed on a two dimensional canvas,
which we call the sky, its three dimensional orientations,
which follow the spherical condensational theory, as I call
it, will project themselves two dimensionally so as that
the relationships are determined by two dimensional
principles, primarily circles and triangles (which can be
inscribed in circles) so as that the number pi (the ratio
of radius to circumfrence, C = pi x r) is dominant in these
relationships. Yet, these relationships were mainly
determined and used long ago, both in Stonehenge and in
cultures such as the Mayas especially, prior to the Irish
monks, so there is no need to discuss such a well known
facet of pi.
How about a lesser known application? Einstein,
afflicted with the same disease as me, perpetuapensa
(perpetual thinking from the english word “perpetual” and
the root of “pensar,” to think, in Spanish), a fictional
disease I just named myself for those who cannot stop
thinking, determined that rivers also abide by the
relationship of pi, and the next time you have the
opportunity to sit by the window on an airplane, you shall
get the chance to observe this. Rivers, in their need to
abide by the same gravitational laws as every other system,
again suit themselves nicely to pi applications. First of
all, the complexity of these calculations is greatly
reduced from the true depth of the “Spherical Condensation
Theory” (which I simplified greatly at the expense of
leaving out a few elemental points, but keeping it more
clear for the less mathematically inclined) due to the fact
that only two dimensions are needed if the system is viewed
on an arial basis. The theory, simply, is that the
distance of the river with its curves included, its true
distance, can be determined by using the ratio of the
length of the river from its source to its mouth:

True length of river (with curves included) = pi
x distance from source to mouth

Only one true condition applies to this, and that
is that the river must be a true river, with a true source
(usually subterraneous) and a true mouth. It does not
apply to estuary streams, nor brooks which stem from ponds
and do not feed another source. This theory is ONLY
applicable to true rivers.
Why does it apply? Well, it again, as hinted at
earlier is due to gravity. The water which flows through
the river does carry weight, and is a moving system, and
accordingly is forced to submit itself to gravity--but why
do the curves and fluctuations throughout tend towards pi?
Changes in elevation cause the turns. Atmospheric pressure
is variant throughout different elevations (as is gravity)
which exerts pressure on the river to abide by the law of
gravitation. Moreover, as erosion occurs at one point
throughout the river, the resulting flux in the river’s
current and flow will balance this change at a point later
in the river to respond to the erosion and keep the ratio
constant.

4) Logarithms in conch shells

The spiral in each conch shell is a natural
logarithm. Discussing this phenomenon at length would only
serve to bore one, as there is nothing particularly
fascinating besides the fact that it occurs.

These are but a few of the applications simple
number theory and mathematics have upon nature, with the
second and fourth examples provided being slight
variations, since they are applications dependant upon
formulas derived from physical relationships, but patterns
could still obviously be extracted from the later results
of the formulas and their respective natures, obviously.
Spoken language may be the medium of communication,
but numbers are the language of the universe.

5
The Second Prime Number

Untitled

Choreograph a heart of insanity:
Dialated pupils;
Pupils study your body--
Dissect your heart to study the tempo:
Analog, monologue, diatribal nonsense--
Resonant thoughts in resonant forms;
To deviate is to stray?
Broken flock, broken pride, broken school.
Broken trust, broken promises, broken bonds--
Released energy: anger:
Distorted speech: thought projection:
Projected vision: prophecy,
Prophecy: insanity?--
Insanity: confinement,
Confinement: increased insanity--
Increased insanity: further distortion: chaos.
Chaos: progression at random--
“Progression”: succession,
Succession through death.
Such is singularity.
Big bang--big crunch,
An endless cycle of time:
Of destruction,
Of rebirth,
Of evolution,
...of progression?
Can-----a----cycle-----progress?
Does it spiral?--Inwards or outwards?
In the end,
It is a mere fingerprint.

O
Omnipotence

Darwinism may have destroyed the anthropomorphic deity of
traditional religion, but instead of humbling us into
awareness of the protocists and all other sibling life
forms (the plants, fungi, bacteria and other animals), it
rendered us greedy to assume God's former place.
--Margulis and Sagan, Microcosmos, p 20-21

In each monotheistic religion, it is said that God is
omnipotent and all powerful over His creation. However,
using the Agnostic Interview as it is sometimes called, it
is easy to see that this is just another fallacy man has
constructed to alleviate the pressure of life and death and
begin to live in the hopes that he is being provided for by
a Creator that may or not even be there.
The so-called Agnostic Interview poses humorous
rhetorical questions that most everyone has heard and
understands, yet provides perfect objections to the mantras
of monotheism. The first, is often phrased, “Could God
create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it?” If the
answer is yes, then God is not omnipotent because He fails
in the task of lifting a rock and cannot fully control His
creation. If he cannot, there is a task which he cannot
perform and therefore he is not all-powerful. Either way,
He fails in this assignment; a Catch-22, as it is called
from Joseph Heller’s rather hysterical novel bearing title
from which we obtained the phrase.
Then the questions proceed to raise more points of
objection regarding God’s omnipotence. “Can God prevent
evil?” If yes, then He is an evil God for failing to do so
and allowing and promoting the suffering of beings He is
supposed to coddle and care for as His children. If he
cannot prevent evil, He is in no way whatsoever
omnipotent. Christians will answer that it is our job to
prevent evil and that the transgressors are punished
eternally, but this is truly just an alibi for a sleeping
God. Any God that allows His creatures to suffer and does
nothing to prevent it is not compassionate, regardless of
whatever reward they may claim awaits such people. There
are children brought into this world in countries such as
Somalia that are left to live in their own waste, as their
bodies waste, their minds waste, and their existance is
wasted. No caring God would allow such to happen and there
is no logic to answer this that is justifiable and
acceptable to those who are directly involved, much less
those such as myself with a third person perspective. It is
simply absurd to believe that there is an omnipotent God
watching over us, and though the queries used to lead into
this discussion are not my own, nor are these concepts by
any means original, they are sufficient to paraphrase and
state my opinion of omnipotence. Again, as stated much
earlier in this essay collection, it is not to say that I
deny the possibility of there being a god, but the
implications it has with regard to human conception only
goes further towards promoting the notion that the creator
of the universe should be left as the word just was,
uncapitialized and unworshipped.

P
Parenting

To develop normally, children need to be
emotionally nourished by the trustworthy adults around
them. When that trust is violated, it aborts their
development. --Drew Pinksy, M.D.

The first and most obvious objection by any adult
to this section is that I have never been a parent and I am
writing about parenting. No, I have never raised children,
but I have been raised as a chlid, seen other children
raised, and extensively pondered the cause and effect that
Freudian psychology is based on. Parenting, more so than
any other element with the possible exception of genetics,
lays the basis on which our personalities are built. Poor
parenting only makes it more difficult for children to
develop into mentally healthy adults, and the converse
holds true regarding good parenting. And while I know very
little about the parenting process, my knowledge of the
development process is as adequate as any other adults
knowledge thereof, save those who specialize in
developmental psychology and the like, obviously.
The first thoughts of poor parenting render one to
think of an abused child, an ignored child, or an orphaned
child--and rightfully so, as these are the children, which
to make a generalization, are the most vulnerable. Abused
children are statistically rendered at a 60% liklihood of
developing into abusive adults (Pinsky). Ignored children,
those whose parent or parents allow them to lead lives free
of rules and guidance, develop at their own whim, which is
often a lifestyle that allows them to fall into the
influence of the least desireable influences, drug users,
law offenders, and the like. And orphaned children, while
often cared for, does not receive the one-on-one parenting
experienced by those in families. The result is often an
emotionally detached adult, one perfectly capable of
functioning in professional pursuits, but one who
experiences extreme adversity in personal relationships--
and later, in parenthood. And these, quite simply, are
just the extremities.
Children in what are perceived to be normal and
functional families are at risk, too, though obviously at a
less alarming rate than the three exceptions mentioned
above. However, because those examples are instances in
which all parenting was denied or perverted (in the case of
the abused), they are inapplicaple to the discussion of
parenting.
Consider the following, a thought provoked by Dr.
Pinsky’s quote which opened the chapter. Pinksy claims
that for a child to “develop normally,” adults they feel
capable of trusting to guide them are a necessity. Now,
just because there are normal, trustworthy adults around
lies no guarantee that the child will trust these adults.
The child may, due to introspection and self-determination,
trust no one. The child may be an extreme introvert and be
nearly impenetrable for communative purposes. These are
products of the child’s temperment, which is an
independantly evolved facet of personalty that takes place
without the influence of nurture for the most part. Some
people, quite obviously, are much more solitary and
difficult to speak to. Psychologists have determined that
these traits in temperment develop long before the child
becomes a social being, as early as six months, using
experiments which centered around environmental stimulation
and the resulting effect on the child. It is these
children that develop abnormally in many cases. However, I
use the term “abnormal” somewhat loosely in this instance
in the sense that it may not be an abnormality particularly
detramental to the individual’s capability to function
within society, but the social implications are there. A
child that does not trust the adults around his or herself
is even less likely to trust their peers. The result is an
individual, whom upon development, is highly socially
inadequate--and resultingly, lonely.
Such individuals, however, often flourish, if only
in the world of thought. Some of the very best thinkers,
men and women mentioned much earlier throughout this
collection of essays have been such people. Nonetheless,
it is an exception within the world of parenting that
cannot be accounted for, as stated earlier, it is a
variation caused by temperment.
So the apparent “failures” of such a process have
been mentioned, only failures in the sense that they have
not developed as most children are, and resultingly are
somewhat socially inadequate. How then does one
successfully raise a socially functional child? To write
extensively on a topic would be to violate the universal
law on parenting, that a non-parent cannot instruct nor
know how to raise a child properly without doing so, and
that is to sufficient to say I will not. I did, however,
desire to mention the element of trust and its vitality in
raising a socially healthy child.

Q

Disclaimer: Many would expect that after so many
scientific essays, that ‘q’ would focus upon quantum
physics, and while ideally it would, my knowledge regarding
this topic is limited. Quantum physics, the science of
determining electron movement, relies heavily on a complex
branch of high level mathematics and difficult
differentials which I am incapable of solving or
understanding on a high cognative level. On the surface, I
am well versed in quantum numbers of electrons and what
these numbers indicate with regard to the electron’s
properties, but those are insufficient grounds on which to
begin an in-depth discussion of the matter.
Quantum mechanics began as a study following
Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle, which states that if
the speed of an electron can be known, then its position
cannot, for it will have moved in a manner difficult to
predict following determining its speed; and that if its
position is determined, its speed is then difficult to
determine due to the fact that it approaches that of light;
and again, the future position is still only able to be
understood as a percentage of possibility due to chaos
theory. It is Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle which has
allowed scientists to understand that chaos theory is
almost applicable at every level imaginable, and that the
universe is relatively unpredicatable as a system using
today’s mathematics. Physicists are waging a constant
battle to make this a problem no longer faced by science,
but these are men working in a branch of science which I
know very little of. But Heisenburg’s Uncertainty
Principle aids this discussion into the uncertain. This
section will deal with mystifying questions that I have
entertained for a long time, and been provided answers to
on occasion, but no answer has yet been reliable in the
sense that it was supported well enough to be taken as a
certainty, or worthy of true validity.

8 Multi-step Questions

Differing from every section written thus far, this
section will not answer or muse on any given topic, but
rather is a series of questions for which I have no answer
whatsoever.

1a) Did the universe have a beginning?

1b) How did the universe begin?--How is a Great First
Cause, as Henry Drummond called it, possible without a pre-
existing cause?

1c) Will the universe ever have an end?

1d) Are there other universes?

1e) Are there other dimensions within this universe
besides, x, y, z, and t?

1f) What purpose is this universe supposed to serve?--why
does it exist at all?

1g) Is multiverse a reality or another construct of man?

2a) How many intelligent races exist outside of our own?

2b) When will we obtain concrete proof of, and then
communicate, with an alien race?

2c) Is telepathy the future of communication?

3a) Is there a god?

3b) Is there an afterlife?

3b^2) Is there such a thing as a “soul,” an element of the
human psyche that transcends death?

3b^3) If there is a soul, and humans did evolve, was
it “injected” into the chain of our progeny at the point at
which the chromosomes fused (24 in all primates but humans,
which have 23) and produced the largest chromosome of our
genome, chromosome #2?

3b^4) Are the black fuse bands on chromosome #2 the
physical locus of the soul?

4a) Is it possible for humans to acheive a speed of travel
faster than the speed of light?

4b) Do any particles travel faster than the speed of light?

5) If time travel is possible (which I do not believe it
is; time dilation, however, is entirely possible), why can
we remember the past but not the future?

6a) How did life begin prior to the existance of
mitochondria, the first traceable “living” entity, as we
define life?

6b) How did these non-living entities become living
organisms (specifically a mitochondrion)?

7a) What is truly the smallest particle of matter?

7b) Does such a particle exist or is every particle
divisible and hence not a true atom (which means smallest
particle of matter and later became defined as “smallest
particle of matter retaining physical properties of the
element”)?

8) Are “miracles” (miracle- an event which violates the
laws of the natural world as we know them) possible?

Any answers that are logical and have a basis in
reason, especially those with mathematical proofs, are more
than welcome (e-mail them to [email protected]).
However, if you have an answer which requires faith, please
do not bother to provide me with such.

7
The Third Prime Number

Untitled Sonnet

Through the haze of future uncertainty,
We cast scattered reflections of our mind,
Cognizant of the relativity
In all the love that we may ever find.
We rationalize the cause, the effect,
Of each and every decision we make
And then we may finally reflect
The path that we desire our heart to take.
Desiring but constancy and the knowns--
To weigh so heavily on our soft hearts!
We emit the quiet gaffs and the silent moans
Each time certainty takes leave and departs.
But our lives’ complex dichotomy
Adds choice from which we gain our ancestry.


R
Reality vs. REM

REM is a trait indigenous to mammals (Essentials of
Psychology, Dennis Coon), a product of the mammalian,
larger brains having a subconscious mind that manifests its
desires and projections while sleeping, and its products
are dreams, plays which we each write every night without
using a pen, or without taking an active role in the
process. On average, a human dreams four or five times a
night, and experiences longer dreams in the later stages of
dreaming, the last usually ranging between 30 and 50
minutes. Aside from the rapid eye movements, which
characterize the dream state (though dreams can occur
outside of REM), it is also a period of sleep characterized
by an irregular heart beat, blood pressure, and breathing
(Coon).
Yet why did REM develop in mammals and what purpose
does it serve? Mother nature, as stated in the section on
mutation, does not act at random. Each trait featured in
each organism is a special adaptation (or reminent of a
past adaptation, a homologous structure) aiding it in its
survival. There are several hypotheses regarding why
mammals incur the stage of REM, and judging by the
correspondance between the observations, the liklihood of
their validity is high. In short, REM is an aid in brain
development, noticed most in infants, as they dream 8 to 9
hours a day, roughly 50% of their sleep; and REM is more
frequent and longer in duration in adults after learning,
so it was conjectured that sleep is an aid in restoring the
proteins and synthases that aid in thinking and learning
(Karni & Winson).
Freud stepped down a ridiculous path in declaring
that dreams have meaning in his pioneering book The
Interpretation of Dreams. His theory from this book, known
as the Psychodynamic Dream Theory, paraphrased, claims that
dreams are a form of projecting our desires--and naturally,
with Freud, these were usually sexual desires. To assume
that each subconscious thought carries relevant pertinence
to the conscious simply is not founded in any true reason,
but rather is founded upon mere speculation; speculation,
in this case, which is utterly wrong.
Many years later during the 1990’s, perhaps aided
by progressions in science, Allan Hobson and Robert
McCarley determined the biological cause of dreams, though
true psychologists who ignore biology simply recognize this
as another explanation, rather than the one correct
explanation. Nonetheless, the explanation Hobson and
McCarley provided was that dreams are caused in REM by the
activation of the brain cells in the limbic system that
control eye movements, balance, and actions during waking
hours. However, denied the external input of an
environment, the brain begins to synthesize its own based
on past experiences and concepts stored within its memory.
The interesting part here becomes just what the brain
synthesizes. It follows logistically, that the more
developed the brain (i.e., the more intelligent the
individual), the more complex (and perhaps bizarre) the
dreams. And as previously stated, learning causes an
increase in dreaming. It is undoubtable that this explains
the incessant dreaming I experience, as if I am not
learning, I am reflecting on what I have learned. The
process is fairly simple to understand.
Yet within this mechanism of REM, which still is
being probed to be understood more fully, lie some of the
most fascinating derivations of reality that are known to
the thinking man. For instance, one of the nagging
questions featured in the ‘q’ section dealed with just
that. I often, more than any other question, question the
purpose of a universe being here at all. Why, if it is
even possible to make a god at all anthropomorphic, as I
will soon, would a god care to create a universe? It is
just mind boggling that a universe occurs opposed to
nothing...and then I begin to think I would not exist, and
that if that were the case, I could never ponder this
situation----then----that thought blows my mind entirely.
In any case, the answer to this question was finally
answered one night in a dream which featured me meeting
Jesus. After His consoling of me (I was literally
paralyzed by sin in the dream and my body did undergo sleep
paralysis, as well), I asked of Him, “Why did you create
the universe?” His reply, more than satisfactory,
was, “Why not?” I woke up refreshed at the idea of such a
true meeting occuring, but this is where men do not
seperate their dreams from reality. Many men would attempt
to attribute a significance to the dream and assume that
there indeed was a god speaking to them. That is how
religion occured, in a sense. Aside from this, I have had
other dreams that have related symbolically or overtly to
Christ or even Mohammed numerous times.
Aside from this, other notable features of my
dreams range broadly. My brain often uses its second
language in dreams. Often I dream in only words with no
accomidating pictures at all, as though reading a novel.
And usually if I talk in my sleep it is in numbers
(integers), or even in percentages. Another form of dream
that is just beginning to occur is the production of
classical music in my brain while entering the early stages
of sleep, but only if the radio is off. When it is off,
because my mind is so conditioned to hearing it in the
moments before sleep, it has begun to both replay music,
and write its own music. Often the brief tunes it composes
are reminiscient of Chopin, though I only own one CD of
his, while owning many Bach’s and Shumanns. As to why this
is, I am relatively uncertain, though it is possible that
the right portion of my brain responsible for this find a
simplicity in the piano patterns of Chopin and elaborates
upon them using the underlying structure and measurements,
more of a projection of pattern than creativity.
All of these dreams, while carrying every element
of a valid memory, are nothing more than brain stimulating
exercises. I have obtained phone numbers in dreams, and
attempted to call them days later, and then was somewhat
mystified; that is, until I was able to know for certain it
was a dreamt encounter. However, now being a lot more anti-
social (once again), this is seldom the concern it once
was, as of about 7 years ago when these type of encounters
occured more frequently in my dreams.
So what can be gained from a seemingly pointless
process that is the product of our brain’s rebuilt and
stimulatory exercises at night? It has produced an epic,
Dante’s “revelation” during his dream, which later led to
The Inferno, regarded as one of the best works of
literature ever. It has led to “Kubla Khan” by Samuel
Taylor Coleridge; led to my “The Serfts” (which I consider
to be one of my best poems, as do others); led to
Mary’s “revelation” with the Angel of Light, awaring her
that she would have the child of the Lord; led to Hamlet’s
vision of his father...dreaming, despite its arbitrary
nature, can still produce thoughts as worthy as
consideration as the conscious mind, both stemming from the
upper frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex. It is imporant
to remember always, however, that these are just that,
dreams, and do not transfer to everyday waking life.
Dreams do not carry significance.


11
El tercero numero de los primes.


“¿Si voy a conocer la pareja del alma de mi mismo antes que
morir?”

“Yo creo que no, me di cuenta.”

“No vale la pena, pero lo peor es que nunca lo entendi
durante toda la pasíon tampoco.”

“Sí, ¡pero todas las cosas en mi vida sin ella les perdían!
De instante, fue obvio que tuve reconocer ella y espera que
ella me entendia.”

“Digame.”

“Bueno.
La resistancia a tu voz
(The resistance in your voice)
No existe en mi corazón
(Does not exist in my heart)
No pude encontrar las ganas de vivir
(I could not find the thrills of live)
Sin ti en mi vida....
(Without you in my life)
Eres mi vida,
(You are my life)
Eres mi fuega,
(You are my fire)
Te necesito.
(I love you)
Cariña vida...
(Caring life...)
Eres la unica chica que amo;
(You are the only girl I love;)
Eres mi aire;
(You are my air;)
La sangre entre mis venas;
(The blood between my vains;)
No puedo arrancarte .
(I cannot leave you)
Ni ver una vida sin tu amor...
(Nor find a life without your love...)
Me envuelvas entiramente.
(You entirely take over me.)
Si no me vas,
(If you don’t come to me)
No puedo continuar...
(I can’t go on)

Si vas en algunos lados del mundo,
(If you go everywhere in the world)
Ven conmigo--
(Come to me)
Tu sonrisa es la sorpresa que nunca parará
(Your smile is the surprise that never ends)
Y hay un gran vacio en mi alma
(And there is a void in my soul)
Que solo te completas.
(Which only you can fill)
Sin tu amor,
(Without your love)
No puedo oracionar mis devociónes
(I cannot pray my devotions).
Ya sabes que supe que no existe un dios,
(You already know I know there’s no god)
Pero eres la prueba de una mujer sin imperfeción
(But you are proof of a perfect woman)
Y la hogera entre mi alma y tu vida,
(And the flame between my soul and your life)
Que me di cuenta es solo que tengo
(That I realized is all I have)
En el final
(In the end)
Solo tu puedas consistir me
(Only you can calm me)
Y entender mi alma sin objeciónes--
(And understand my soul without problem)

Dime que sientas
(Tell me what you feel)
Y si siente alguna forma de duda,
(And if you feel any doubt at all)
Puedo convencerte.
(I CAN convince you)
Soy el hombre que puedo
(I am the man that can)
Providir una estación pa’ tu alma.
(Provide a safe place for your soul)

Mira nuestro amor
(Look at our love)
Y sin respeto a que sabes
(And without respect to what you know)
Va en la direción que diga tu corazón.
(Go in the direction your heart tells you to)

Nuestro futuro es brillante,
(Our future is bright)
Como la primera flor de la primavera,
(Like the first flower of spring)
O el último día del inverierno,
(Or the last day of winter)
Y regresa los aves de mi pasion
(And the birds return, my avid hobby)
Los que cancionantonos--
(They sing to us)
Baila, cada uno, ¡si la pueda!
(Dance, everyone, if you can!).”

“Ahora yo sé de tu eres muy genial. Ven conmigo y fumar
este hierba conmigo, ¿OK?”

“Vale, si desde me dijiste la verdad. ¡No lo ovides!”

S
Suicide

The centre that I cannot find
Is known to my unconscious mind;
I have no reason to despair
Because I am already there
--W.H. Auden

Often, people comment suicide is “taking the easy way out,”
to speak colloquially. However, these same people, and all
people, often “take the easy way out” as much as possible,
as that is simply human nature. The human mind is well
trained enough to find the simplest means possible to
accomplish a given task. ‘Work smarter, not harder,’ many
an employer has told an employee. Why then does this
principle not apply to life?
Suicide is not simply the road taken by the weak.
Should life prove unbearable and no longer worth enduring,
exiting life should always be an option. Many respectable
people have ended their own lives; many more have
considered it. After there no longer seems to be an
objective worth striving for, or whatever hopes previously
held appear hopeless, the person should be allowed to walk
away from this life if they choose. In the same sense that
abortion clinics exist, suicide clinics should exist, as
well. Not only would this make the situation a little less
painless since it would be administered to the patient in a
painless injection, but it would also ease the pain on
their family slightly since they would not have to view a
mutilated body or a body that had endured self-inflicted
pain in any manner to acheive death. Granted, suicide will
always leave those behind who cared for the individual
upset and hurt at their loss, but that it a choice by the
individual to inflict that pain, and in some peoples cases,
this is not even a consideration. Beyond this, it would
save those who failed in committing suicide from living
lives they find entirely pointless within an asylum where
care is administered to prevent them from “hurting
themselves,” when in reality, continuing to live is more
pain than death could ever hope to inflict upon such
people.
Life, unfortunately, is not always worth living,
and suicide should remain a viable option for those who
desire it. Suicide, like many of the topics in this
collection of essays, has existed indefinitely into
mankind’s past, and exists in many old works of literature,
from Ophelia in MacBeth to Classical period works such as
Kate Chopin’s The Awakening to contemporary works such as
Michael Cunningham’s Pulitzer Prize winning The Hours. It
is a perpetual problem which is not a problem at all.

The following poem was written during my senior
year of high school while suicide appeared to be quite
attractive.

Untitled Poem (1998)

I long to hear the voice I fear,
Quite unsure of the mind,
And yes, I’ll grab another beer
To silence mental grind.

The thoughts repeating still echo broken--
No clarity and no need;
Should the brain grasp but a token,
I’ll search for my friend, weed.

Reminants still seem to echo through
(Somehow the brain remains)
While the functions are somewhat slow,
It’s seemed to ease the pains.

But if this echo chatters past
It’s calling and its fame--
Indeed, we have another “last”
With a special, tidy name:

Seven letters, one solution;
Quite final and complete,
And no, it’s no delusion--
Suicide--no more confusion.

T
Telepathy

Telepathy, while considered mere science fiction to
some, is not truly anything worthy of being scoffed at.
Long considered to be impossible, tests run
by “parapsychologists,” as they are referred to, have
proven that telepathy very well may be occuring, though no
one at all has any idea how.
The tests the parapsychologists have run often
involve twins, as these seem to be the people most capable
of using telepathic communication. During a particular
experiment, two twins were separated, both very young
fraternal twins, a boy and his sister. The sister, who had
a fear of the dark, was separated from her brother and
locked into a dark room in isolation. Within moments, her
brother began to frantically relay to the psychologists
that he was scared his sister was in trouble. Other
examples of tests such as these have been run, and the
results have proven within a relatively high confidence
interval, in the 50% range, that telepathy can occur
between two individuals who are very close and capable of
relating very well to one another.
However, telepathy is not limited to communication
between twins and close individuals. During the Second
World War, the Soviet Union was using those with telepathic
prowess to determine the location of enemy submarines.
Using a technique called “remote viewing,” the telepathists
were able to provide locales of enemy submarines, which
were often located in the Artic waters to the north of the
Soviet Union. Even able to provide relative coordinates
when shown a map, this phenomenon has continued to baffle
scientists who are unable to provide any rational
explanation for this type of thought.
Due to the fact no one has a mechanism proposed for
telepathy and it cannot be proven entirely, it remains a
topic somewhat clouded in mystery, but one that simply
cannot be disregarded. With how much the human mind is
capable of, it does seem entirely possible that such a
process could indeed occur. Perhaps the brain releases
very low energy frequencies when experiencing a particular
emotion and thoughts and actual phrases are not possible to
be transmitted at all. No one is yet sure, but this is
likely to be a topic that will be uncovered more as time
goes on.




Ad: