Remember Maximilien Robespierre July 28, 1794

What goes around comes around.

The Fabric of Reality

 When discussing how it is not yet possible to discover particles even smaller than the smallest known particle, this sentence appears in an online article in ScienceABC, 27 March 2020:  "Think about it like this… you’re literally trying to rip apart the very fabric of reality." As far as we know, almost everything of which we are aware is composed of a bunch of quarks and electrons making up a bunch of neutrons and protons making up a bunch of atoms making up a bunch of molecules, making up a bunch elements which when properly arranged and combined allow us and other sentient creatures to see or imagine we see a table or whatever. How is it possible that we visualize a table rather than a bunch of elements or atoms? A table falls readily into the 'matter' category by definition. However, are 'the mind' and 'fire' matter?  How about the number 7? We are clearly aware of both 'mind' and 'fire' and even the number 7 but by the strictest definition of matter, they do not appear to any of our five senses.  If there are things within our awareness that are not 'matter', what are they and what are they made up of? And if there are things we are aware of that are not matter, are they real? Which leads us to ask, what is reality?

Most of us would agree that reality is simply that which we are aware of through our senses. Yet we would also most agree that the concepts of 'mind', 'fire',  and the number 7 are real. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528840-500-reality-the-definition/  We would also agree that smells and sounds, while not matter, are as well real. So concepts, smells, and sounds are real but do not constitute matter. Back to square one: What is reality? It goes beyond what we perceive to include what we can conceive. Maybe reality is what we experience. Maybe reality is only in our minds. Consequently, each sentient being has its own reality.

P.S. What is a 'mind'?

Of Course I Didn't Mean What I Said, or Something

On March 3, 2020, Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Now, we all know that politicians on both sides of the aisle, even some independents, are wont to say stupid things. Then they apologize with even stupider statements. Chuck's recent gaffe is a perfect example. Before realizing the potential backlash, he spoke to please an already sympathetic crowd and to release his frustration and ire toward those who may think and rule differently than he desires regarding killing babies, born and unborn.


Chuck's office's attempt to explain away the personally threatening language as referring to "the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court," is ridiculous on the surface. How is it possible to misinterpret, "you Gorsuch," "you Kavanaugh," "You have released," "you will pay," and "You won't know," to mean other than the named individuals? It isn't and anyone who hears or reads those knows with absolute certainty that the speaker meant them as a personal threat to the named justices. If he meant something different, he would have so said.

Then yesterday, Chuck, instead of apologizing in a forthright manner, made the aforementioned "stupider statement," "Now, I should not have used the I used yesterday. They didn't come out the way I intended to. Of course, I didn't intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court. I shouldn't have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I would never do such a thing." This is a stupid statement and worse, a lie!

Pelosi Hates Trump

I am convinced.

Her rant is prima facie evidence. Seems that people that are correctly accused of an embarrassing negative respond with considerably more vigor than than those wrongly accused. Had she, instead of ranting, responded somewhat quietly and certainly more calmly her rebuttal would have been more believable. Something like, "No, I do not hate the President, although, I do find much of what he says and does disagreeable as I believe it not to be in the best interest of the country, and, as I've said, even unconstitutional."

And, Nancy being a Catholic seems to mean little more to her than tagging all the sacramental bases. Being Catholic is not exculpatory evidence that she does not hate. How could a true Catholic support the murder of unborn children? Nope, don't believe it's possible. As for her hating Trump, sure she does. Meriam-Webster says she does. Shakespeare says she does, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". The President is an aversion to her. She demonstrates an"extreme dislike" and "disgust" of Trump, the very definition of "hate." To accuse anyone with wrongdoing of any kind with finality is an emotional not a logical response to that person's being. Nancy lied and the majority of Americans know so, some because they also hate the President and others because they support him.

Chick-fil-A Backing Up to the Pay Table

When Chick-fil-A (CFA) stood up for Christian values and stood up to the secular and democratic socialist governments, social justice warriors and LGBT groups, CFA was my hero. Things have changed--they caved to the dollar!

Nope, I'm not religious, certainly not anti-gay, and not opposed to singe-sex marriages, although I do have my doubts about how the whole transgender thing is supposed to work, I am strongly opposed to abortions, and I think the whole social justice thing is silly. No, I just believe that we all have the right to live all aspects of our lives according to our own values as long as they don't actively interfere with the rights of others and I have great respect for small and large companies that operate according to an unerring set of announced values that involve morality and ethics in addition to "maximizing profits." CFA started out as one of those companies then the pressure from LGBTQ groups and secular European governments won out.

Ceasing donations to Christian groups like the Salvation Army and donating to groups that practice non-Christian values is not necessarily "bad" depending on your perspective. What is bad is trying to appease both sides with a deceiving compromise attempt. I predict that the LGBTQ community, for the most part, will continue to boycott CFA and that practicing Christians will quietly satisfy their chicken cravings elsewhere. And CFA's bottom line will continue to grow as they expand into markets that don't give a hoot one way or the other.

Anyway, I'm disappointed. There are very few heroes left. Full disclosure: I've never been to a Chick-fil-A.

Consciousness

The human realization that we are self-aware has
plagued humans ever since they became, well, conscious. Humans realize that we
realize. Why? One answer, more scientific and mechanical than philosophical or
epistemological, is simply because all the elements that make up our brains
talk to each other, thus creating the mind. And the mind is conscious. It's a
neuronal thing according to Francis Crick in his book, Astonishing
Hypothesis. This explains nothing regarding how and why we are conscious.
It only verifies that our brains are made up of various and many tiny things
that in combination allow our brains, and by reference, us, to know stuff.

Another proposed solution is a philosophical one: that
we simply aren't smart enough to ever understand our minds (Christof Koch, The
Feeling of Life Itself). Seems to me that that begs the question unless
one believes that the evidence that we don't understand our minds IS the
evidence that we don't understand our minds.

One that truly baffles me is a book by Donald D.
Hoffman titled The Case Against Reality. Basically we all are in a
computer game that hides (protects?) us from reality--on purpose. Sort of like,
"You couldn't handle the truth." What we perceive to be real, really
isn't. And then, somehow, this all relates to "fitness". This is
justified reasoning because Kant and Plato suggested something similar a very
long time ago. And we all know that if ancients thought it, it must be true.

Michael S.A. Graziano’s book Rethinking
Consciousness is on target to be even more silly than Hoffman's. The idea
in his "attention schema theory" is that when we (pay attention, we
model the world. This supposedly occurred some 350 million years ago.

There are many more more reasonable theories of
consciousness that also don't answer the question, "How do we know that we
know?" It's a hot topic within the scientific community looking for an
atheistical answer that maybe can only be answered by God.

(I would also be interested in researching a bit into
whether other living things might also have a degree of consciousness and what
the possibilities are for consciousness in machines.)

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

Lieutenant Colonel Vindman reportedly stated during closed-door testimony before a congressional committee that he was "concerned" or "disturbed" by the content of President Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president. To hold such an opinion is his right, to voice it is beyond presumptuousness and militarily inappropriate, possibly even a violation of the Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel from the U.S. Army after many years of active service having risen through the enlisted ranks. I can say without a doubt that to verbally disagree with the Commander and Chief of the United States Armed Forces on matters pertaining to foreign policy, a presidential prerogative in accordance with the nation's constitution, would in my time have resulted in the perpetrator facing a General Courts-Martial. Not sure, however, that expressing an opinion that a president was wrong would be found by the court to be "contemptuous". I guess an implication of contemptuousness could be argued successfully.

For the sake of the uniform and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's years of honorable service, I only hope that the transcript of his testimony shows that he was not presuming to question the rightness of the President's private discussion with a foreign leader. For to do so would be to express a lack of respect.