1

Clearly the post of someone that belives rather than tests and certifies! To even imply that randomness can be skewed by some mysterious energy force proves it is not randomness and you need a better assay.

Such ideas capitalize on a few data points and distorted data from poorly derived experiments. I'll give $1000 to the first person that can show me a 1 to 1 correlation between a loss of randomness in a random system tied to world events. Approach this like a scientist, not a moron.

Is there a time lag, is there a dose-resposne relationship? These are the hard questions you can NEVER demonstrate.

Keep believing in this stuff. Study it, believe it. I'll be working on real science, not your pseudoscientific misinformation. I'll move things forward and shape the future while you and your ilk continue to tread water in a sea of retarded unprovable beliefs.

2

Did you read the post, or just skim it? I'm still trying to figure out if you're directing this screed against Joe, the people who came up with this stuff, or both.

3

There's also one other variable that seems to have been forgotten in this silliness -- if the movement is based on "consciousness," and the graphed spiked upward BEFORE the events, then not only did these mystical devices know about the events, the people of the world knew about them before they ever happened, too! This device is SO good that it proves that everyone else in the world can predict the future, too. I'm going to see if eBay has any discounts on fortune-telling supplies...

4

The data may be crap. The researchers may be seeing patterns where there aren't any. The fact that important "events" occur with some frequency -- and the question of "importance" is a subjective one -- also make it easy to link an apparent deviation from the norm with an event.

Still, they've proposed a falsifiable test regarding a black box. The test is, "does this thing predict the future." I don't see how the black box experiment would prove, or disprove, a "global consciousness," however. So the scientests (and perhaps you) have lost me there.

5

Hmph.

I can't understand why the concept of a global consciousness, or Gaia-consciousness, is so alien [sorry]. It's simply an emergent property of ununoctium (created at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) dissolved in polywater carried on modulated N-rays.

Obviously, one cannot dispute the findings of science.

6

Wow, Joe admits the possibility of consciousness being an emergent property (say of material systems?), negating many of his arguments that rely on things like "identity with matter" in previous posts. Iiinteresting.

Though it would be nice if he provided a less incomplete argument, which might actually lead to the claim that global consciousness is not only possible, but likely (though nothing he says here even implies possibility either, because he says nothing about the types of physical systems in which consciousness might adhere, it would be more interesting to see him actually argue for the stronger claim).

7

This "theory" is most often associated with the work of Pierre Theilhard de Chardin, the French Jesuit paleo-botanist geologist who believed that creation was composed not of matter and energy, but something called "spirit matter". This stuff of the universe would become conscious if enough were piled up, according to Theilhard. The macro-molecular complexity of human life made it possible for spirit matter to become aware of itself. See The Divine Milieu and The Phenomena of Man by Theilhard.
The rest of this sounds vaguely like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's global consciousness concepts, articulated by John Hagelin and others through Maharishi International University back in the 80s. Hagelin became the presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party at one time, running for President until Pat Buchanan took over the party to get the state registrations to wage a national campaign. Curious, at least.
All my thoughts are just reactions in informal conversation. Take them for what they are worth.

8

Ogre This device is SO good that it proves that everyone else in the world can predict the future, too.

Actually, that is one of the possibilities considered by the experiment. It’s believed that since physics doesn’t rule out time being able to “double-back” that people could be “remembering” an event in the future.

Chris Wow, Joe admits the possibility of consciousness being an emergent property (say of material systems?),

I did? If I gave that impression let me clarify that I consider emergent properties to be as possible as other types of magical properties (i.e., fairy dust).

...because he says nothing about the types of physical systems in which consciousness might adhere,

If consciousness is an inherent property of matter then it is theoretically possible for it to be produced by any type of physical system no matter how simple or complex.

9

If consciousness is an inherent property of matter then it is theoretically possible for it to be produced by any type of physical system no matter how simple or complex.

Can you clarify what you mean by "inherent property." It seems to me that photosynthesis is a property of matter organized into a plant, and refracting visible light is a property of matter organized into a prism. So, by your reasoning, we have to conclude either that photosynthesis and refraction are dependent on something other than physical matter, or it is theoretically possible for lumps of sandstone to photosynthesize and refract light. Since neither conclusion seems compelling, perhaps there is something wrong with your claims about inherent properties.

Why is it required, even theoretically, that all of the properties of certain arrangements of matter should be shared by all matter?

10

Until this stuff is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, color me skeptical. True, unorthodox stuff like ID tends to get censored in the literature, but I want to see it replicated by scientists who aren't in this little group.

FWIW though, Einstein demonstrated that time is a physical property. If there is a part of us that is non-physical (i.e. spirit), would it too be bound by time constraints?

11

Triangle shaped is an emergent property of pebbles organized by a child on the beach into the shape of a triangle. It doesn't follow that water in the ocean has 'triangle shaped' as an emergent property.

12

Before we go into the child being an intelligent designer, let's also say triangle shaped would 'emerge' from some pebbles that were randomly scattered and came out in the shape of a triangle!

13

Joe,

"One of the most profound ironies of the naturalistic worldview is that the more it tries to exclude supernatural explanations the more it veers into the realm of mysticism. In order to account for the natural world, the physicalist either has to deny the existence of what common sense tells us is real (e.g., eliminativists dismiss beliefs and emotions as “folk psychology”) or has to expand the idea of consciousness to include entities without a “brain” (i.e., global consciousness, panpsychism, the Gaia Hypothesis)."

Haven't I heard something like this before? Oh yeah. It was Romans 1. Amazing. You'd think the Book was inspired or something.

14

That being said there's a few possibilities to explore here. The first is whether the 'random number generators' are really random. Could thoughts produce small magenetic fields that could slightly alter the 'virtual coin toss'? How about alterations in the earth itself? For example, could the earthquake that caused the Tsuammi have been preceeded by some physical change to cause the random generator to deviate?

Predicting 9/11 is harder to explain. If Joe's hypothesis is correct, then we have a paradox issue. If the thoughts of people after 9/11 could have 'echoed' backwards in time to a few days before then 9/11 could have been prevented. If so then how could 9/11 have been prevented? Since no one would be thinking about it on 9/11 there would be no thoughts to send backwards in time!

Nothing new here, just your classic sci-fi story of the guy who goes back in time and kills his grandfather. The last few Star Trek series seemed to do it every 3 or 4 episodes.

What worries me about the scientific standing of the project is not that they are investigating something possibly paranormal but that they assume this is consciousness. Ever hear someone describe some type of dramatic event and say something like "you could smell the fear in the room"? Well suppose in addition to the actual smells humans produce it is possible to 'sense' emotions. That doesn't make the room itself conscious. The room doesn't think. It would be a lot of fun if something like ESP does exist but somehow I suspect Joe isn't into this story for the science but because he believes it somehow proves something.

15

But science doesn't exclude supernatural explanations, unless by that you mean explanations cease to be supernatural once you understand them. Magnetism was known since ancient times and it does indeed appear supernatural. Did science 'exclude' supernaturalism when it explained it or did it simply turn on the lights?

16

"And while [global consciousness] may not be a view that is widely held in modern Western culture"

Ever heard of Deadheads? Read "More Than Human" by Theodore Sturgeon and Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke.

These books are well written and interesting science fiction.

Your post and its underlying subject is pseudoscientific bullcrap. If you seriously believe there is any validity to a machine that is argued to predict events like 9/11 AND the tsunami by relying on a common principle, you are an idiot.

That's right: an idiot.

17

It sounds like an attempt to apply quantum level theory to a macro world. On a quantum level, the observer can influence the results of his experiment by the simple act of observation.

Incidentally, the website for this project does not take issue nearly as seriously as Joe does. It looks more like entertainment for physicists than a serious experiment. Heh. Egghead humor, who knew?

It might be interesting if they tried it with a distributed computing project, like the ones that analyze astronomical data in search of radio anomalies.

18

From the site

"The idea that we can use the scale of such variations in the data as a measure of some aspect of "consciousness" is derived from three decades of laboratory research indicating that conscious intention can affect the randomness of REG devices in controlled experiments. "

30 years of lab research, huh? And how many peer-reviewed research papers were cited in support of this claim?

ZERO.

This blog is becoming the world headquarters of pseudoscientific garbage.

I anxiously await the post entitled, "Are Sasquatch Christians?"

19

Larry -

I don't think Joe is advocating this "science", I think he's just talking about it.

Other than that, I'm not sure how to comment on this article. It seems to take a limited data set and build a bizarre and complicated theory around it that makes little sense. "Reverse echoes"?

Call me old fashioned, but I believe Time goes in one direction all the time.

20

P.S. If a Sasquatch confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart that Jesus is Lord...

21

P.S. If a Sasquatch confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart that Jesus is Lord...

22

I would like to see the schematic of this random generator. If it is indeed based on a calculators digital logic circuits... and these mystical forces are modifying the outputs of digital logic circuits... why are not non-random circuits being affected too? Why doesn't everyones computer have a hissy fit before the psunomi? Digital circuitry is digital circuitry. Give me a box and a schematic and I'll test it.

23

Good points, RA. And I'm a bit suspicious of any group of scientists that adopt for their name the conclusion they hope to prove. Even if everything is on the up-and-up, there's the potential for a real selection bias with the data.

24

Come on. I heard about this at a party from a guy who also claimed scientists had found microscopic "love particles" in water blessed by Buddhist monks. It's sheer crackpot science.

25

As far as I can see there is nothing new in this. We've had decades of interesting claims involving all sorts of techniques including tarot cards and i ching which involve semi random events with alleged systems for mapping them (something this current claim lacks.)

Now as far as I can see one has 2 choices.

1- dismiss the claims.

2- take them seriously and assume something similar to what is claimed is happening.

For the sake of a thought experiment let's assume the later. Let's say that many of the claims are accurate. Something is happening!

Ok so what else happens?

- This event is only observable by a few. As soon as one tries to extend the group and verify it then the results stop being interesting. In a related example the aliens reveal themselves to individuals, but they never land in front of the white house, they even leave artifacts, but these artifacts are never quite established as unique by tests. Perhaps it's because some conspiracy covers up things, but how could this always happen? Certainly with the "para normal" there would be tests that could be reliably repeated over and over by almost anyone, and indeed certainly many people result interesting results with oija boards etc.

Yet there is never any thing which is irrefutable, nor any technique which offers the reliability of normal tools.

Again go back to the assumption. This stuff is real. The people experiencing it are not lying. This is a thought experiment.

For whatever reason the forces involved chose to hide themselves, they have some sort of "intelligence" and can observe the observers. Within our limited knowledge of the universe these forces are perhaps some sort of "quantam computer," linking together all sorts of spaces and times, perhaps the same force that powers our brain (see Penrose et al) and they share with quantam physics an indetermincy, and observation effects the events observed.

However "they" must be observing us. "They" must know when the previously statistically impossible numbers must fall into regular patterns, that the skeptic is in the room etc.

And if one believes legend and story even when their use is private they tend to trick their manipulators. At some point the "magic" fails.

This has happened repeatedly and unless one believes some secret cult rules the world is demonstrable. Mastery of these capacities would give incredible power and those who had it would rise and around them would be quasi religious beliefs (since this is how we historically interpet this events.) But they do not follow "normal" physical "laws." They are sporadic and unpredictable.

And *if* one assumes they are real and that one is not the *first* to stumble upon them, then this trickster quality is observable. It has occured over and over.

Yet I do not see any "researcher" establish this as a fundamental. Indeed over and over they say "this time we will show it, this time we have shown it," despite over a century of scientific failure.

What puzzles me is how can this be ignored by individuals who are supposedly trained to look for big, important patterns and see outside of normal boxes?

Perhaps this quantum computer (or whatever it is) is both looking at us and programming those who think they explore it.

26

XXXX
So....why do they only pick these "calculators" and not my computer or coffee maker? I feel very unloved and left out!

27

"What puzzles me is how can this be ignored by individuals who are supposedly trained to look for big, important patterns and see outside of normal boxes?"

What puzzles me is how an adult human being could be so freaking stupid.

28

Isn’t the purpose of Joe’s post to mock and ridicule the experiment? His point is that those who don’t believe in God are forced to make some weird explanations about things like consciousness. But Larry Lord is also ridiculing the experiment - which means he agrees with Joe.

Wait - that can’t be possible….

29

Let's get back to what Joe said:

One of the most profound ironies of the naturalistic worldview is that the more it tries to exclude supernatural explanations the more it veers into the realm of mysticism. In order to account for the natural world, the physicalist either has to deny the existence of what common sense tells us is real (e.g., eliminativists dismiss beliefs and emotions as “folk psychology”) or has to expand the idea of consciousness to include entities without a “brain” (i.e., global consciousness, panpsychism, the Gaia Hypothesis). The attempts to build a metaphysical framework while standing on the scaffolding of naturalism inevitably produces such peculiar theories. And it doesn’t take an EGG to predict that in the future we will see more of this sort of nonsense.

the problem with this statement is that it defies the facts. The 'Gaia Hypothesis' is not necessary to explain the natural world. In fact, the hypothesis is psychologically appealing in a Star Trekkie sort of way but faces a tough uphill battle in terms of science.

Ditto for this story. The idea here seems to be that a 'collective mind' can alter randomness (this is why your computer and coffee maker didn't go crazy on 9/10/01...those devices are not designed to work on randomness)...hence if something crazy is about to happen I suppose it causes a 'fair' coin to suddenly not have a 50-50 chance of landing on heads.

OK, if this is happening it is quite appealing to fellows like Joe. Why? Because Joe refuses to alter his ideology to conform to what science tells us is true. Hence any gaps that appear in science make people like him estatic. Every time something odd happens it might just be the Gap that God is hiding in!

But Joe is just wrong here. Science isn't resorting to ESP or 'memory echoes from the future' to explain anything. Science is just getting around to seeing if there really is anything to explain.

Even if there is something to explain it's hardly clear that such far out theories need to be called in to do it. Yet Joe would have us believe that no only is there something to explain but those blind naturalists are overlooking the 'obvious' supernatural answer (which is what? spirits tried to warn us of 9/11? that we all have psychic powers?) and resorting to silly naturalist explanations as a form of denial.

30

patrickstahl

"But Larry Lord is also ridiculing the experiment - which means he agrees with Joe.

Wait - that can’t be possible…."

Actually, it's happened before. I can't remember when. But it's happened.

31

It's beyond me how anyone who believes in virgin birth and resurrection can imply a comparison between emergent properties and "fairy dust".

I see consciousness as a natural consequence of increased brain complexity; I don't find it unfathomable in the least.

32

It seems like quite a leap if just by increasing the complexity of something it can go from not-conscious to conscious to sentient. What is the complexity tapping into make these astounding jumps? What is it harnessing?

33

"Consciousness" is just a name we have given to a concept of something that has degrees. Where is the cut-off? Are dolphins conscious? What about a dog? What is so astounding about the leaps one species makes in consciousness compared to other species?

The whole argument about consciousness is as much a semantical argument as a scientific or existential one.

34

Rob -

Well, lets compare:

1. A Rock
2. A Snail
3. A Dog
4. A 40-year old Human

Wouldn't you say there is a fundamental different kind of consciousness between those four that can't be measured by a degree? Maybe (big maybe) between 2 and 3, but it seems pretty out there to think you can transition on a continuum from Rock to Human just by adding more or different flavors of atoms. I mean, rocks and people are essentially made of the same types of material (on a subatomic level), yet humans can hold beliefs and experience nostalgia, things nothing else can do. Even from snails to dogs to chimps, they can't do that. There appears to be a brick wall separating rocks, dogs, and humans from having the same kind of consciousness.

This is all very theoretical of course because I don't know how to really study this stuff. I'm just thinking out loud.

35

Phil:
I would prefer that we limit our subjects to living things. Just a prejudice of mine, I suppose, but I,m not animist enough to assign any level of consciousness to minerals. I would mark the points along the theoretical continuum using only the human evolutionary path, for the sake of simplicity. Since we have no access to any living links in this chain, however, we must look to our cousins. How do you know chimps don't experience nostalgia, or deja vu, or anything else? Because they don't write about them? I wouldn't assume as much.

Koko the gorilla learned many words in sign language. She once signed in exasperation, "kitten obnoxious" when her pet kitten got too rough with her. The great apes are exceedingly self-aware and have great problem-solving skills. I would again assert that the only difference between ape and human consciousness is one of degree.

36

No one ever mentions the time when Koko asked her keepers, "When Koko meet Great Gorilla in Sky?".

37

If this wasn't a blog written by a Christian, I would swear that somebody's been hitting the BONG again...A LOT!
Global Consciousness???
Wait,I know, Have you ever looked at a grain of sand and thought, "I wonder if there is a whole universe in this grain of sand? And I wonder if our universe is just a grin of sand in someboby else's playground???
Hmmm...
If it's not a bong, what are these people smoking that come up with this stuff?

38

Really good work. I found a lot of profound information which can help me to go on. Thanks for all this input.

39

Wouldn't you say there is a fundamental different kind of consciousness between those four that can't be measured by a degree? Maybe (big maybe) between 2 and 3, but it seems pretty out there to think you can transition on a continuum from Rock to Human just by adding more or different flavors of atoms.

Well rocks would probably have zero consciousness and you can define humans as having 100. If consciousness is caused by complex brain structures you could put the snail and dog on the scale based on how close their brains are to humans...dogs probably rather close and the snail probably far away.

At the moment that's probably the best you can do. As far as the difference only being caused by atoms arranged in a different manner, what evidence is there for anything else. So far no one has been able to find anything in the brain that is not normal matter and no reactions that happen as a result of anything other than normal physics/chemistry.

If there's something else (I won't call it a soul) that causes consciousness then it will have to interact with the brain. If it doesn't then how does this something else allow us to make decisions? If this something else can't interact with the brain then is it just along for the ride??? Sort of like the guy at the end of the movie _Being John Malkovich_? If this something else does interact with the brain shouldn't we be able to detect reactions happening that are not explainable by everyday chemistry?

40

Here's a good site on GCP, unfortunately it looks like the science is totally bunk:

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm

41

There is a huge difference in consciousness between apes and humans. Let me see Koko master the calculus, paint like Rubin or compose like Motzart. How about building tools like lawnmowers or scissors. We have the ability to create higher order systems from lower order systems. Teaching a dog to sit up or an ape to mimick hand signs is not human consciousness.
The real problem evolutionists have is how to explain this huge difference. We are not that physiologically different from apes. There is no physical attribute we possess that can explain the difference.
The difference is we have a spirit that is us. When we drive a car, we are not the car. We control the car. Our spirit controls our bodies in much the same way. When the body dies the spirit goes elsewhere.

42

RA,

You seem to be saying that doing calculus or composing like Motzart makes you more conscious...well not only does that imply that there's a huge difference in consciousness between great apes and humans but also between different humans.

You're very close to Singer's position that humans with serious brain damage are actually less conscious than great apes since they can't do any of the things you mention!

43

The difference is we have a spirit that is us. When we drive a car, we are not the car. We control the car. Our spirit controls our bodies in much the same way. When the body dies the spirit goes elsewhere.

Which brings us back to Descarte's problem. If the spirit controls our bodies then shouldn't we find something happening somewhere in our bodies that (probably our brains) that cannot be explained by standard chemistry?

I'm pointing a gun at my enemy, do I kill him or show mercy? If my spirit is what decides then somehow my spirit has to make my brain fire the electrons that will determine whether my finger pulls the trigger or my arm lowers the gun.

44

Larry,

When did Koko say that?

All I've found is the following, which leads me to believe Koko is a feminist of some sort:

Finally, to end on a positive note, here's Koko's view of the creator:

Penny: Who made the earth?
Koko: Another lip. ("lip" is the sign Koko uses to refer to women, because they often use lipstick)

Obviously, Koko thinks the world is in good hands.
Can we prove her right?

. . . Penny

http://www.koko.org/world/journal.phtml?offset=7

45

"The real problem evolutionists have is how to explain this huge difference."

It is not so much a problem the evolutionists have explaining as it is a problem creationists have understanding or accepting.

"We are not that physiologically different from apes. There is no physical attribute we possess that can explain the difference."

It's true that apes and humans are very alike physiologically; this supports the notion of shared ancestry. The brains of humans are much more complex, however. Brain complexity is shown through the number and depth of brain convolutions, since most brain function takes place near the surface of the brain. Hence very convoluted brains for apes, dolphins, and humans, and much smoother brains for less intelligent species.

"The difference is we have a spirit that is us. When we drive a car, we are not the car. We control the car. Our spirit controls our bodies in much the same way. When the body dies the spirit goes elsewhere."

There is evidence of brain differences that can explain disparities in cognitive function; what evidence can you offer of this "spirit" to which you refer?

46

Larry said: Your post and its underlying subject is pseudoscientific bullcrap. If you seriously believe there is any validity to a machine that is argued to predict events like 9/11 AND the tsunami by relying on a common principle, you are an idiot.

Open mouth, insert foot...

47

Interesting stuff! I saw the article as well and compare (on my blog) its findings to how C.S. Lewis explains the doctrine of the incarnation in Mere Christianity.

48

Hi, I've lurked awhile and luv!!!;-) the site even though I'm distraught over words like "bullcrap" being used by commenters.
I have to say I'm sick over this Jeff Gannon stuff. I loved his radio show and I'm just stunned that he is a fallen man and sickened that he peformed his sins while wearing the same uniform as my brave husband.
It looks like we've all been fooled and that the White House is filled with deviants.
I'll try to forgive but I don't think I can.

49

This is slightly less amazing than the Kennedy Dollar bill. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

50

debbie,

Before you go off condemning everyone in the White House you might take note that Jeff Gannon is neither a White House staffer nor a regular member of the press corps.

51

What exactly is the original post supposed to say? It is so poorly written and argued, really a bunch of non-sequiters, it seems a literary model of the very phenomena it seeks to explore, random dribblings of words and phrases . . .

"Because the laws of probability predict that the sequence of ones and zeroes will be roughly equal, the graph should be nearly flat with any deviation appearing as a gently rising curve."

Not necessarily. If you graph all these binary results, the longer time goes on, the smoother the graph will appear, even the spikes that are claimed in the post will be lost in the long view. But any spike is a spike in terms of the relative time frame in which the graph is viewed, just like in baseball hot and cold streaks over the course of a week or two disappear at the end of the season into a final batting average.

And what about all the spikes? Pre-9/11 and tsunami spikes are claimed, but what about other spikes that cannot be interpreted subjectively to apply to particular emotional events for human beings? What if there are spikes for particular events that are tragic or shocking on the small scale but not for the global media? Do those not count? Do we need to dig through history to find an event to which to impute a spike? This is fools-gold, the enduring need for people to place their own, personal order on what is true, and long-term, randomness. . .

"If the physical universe (i.e., matter/energy) is all that exists, then consciousness must be either an inherent property or an emergent property of matter."

Uh, no. Unless rocks have consciousness. Or your computer. In which case, why won't it ever understand what it is you want it to do? Excuse me, but this is supposed to be the evangelical viewpoint? Cannot God have created the soul, consciousness, and let that remain a beautiful mystery of humanity without seeking to justify it in the obvious and the material? This viewpoint expressed, if I can divine the muddle, is based on a material view of the universe. That is a deep failing of belief and spirituality. Not to mention this all is grounded on the bogus numerology of EGG, seems like the devils work.

52

"Wait,I know, Have you ever looked at a grain of sand and thought, "I wonder if there is a whole universe in this grain of sand? And I wonder if our universe is just a grin of sand in someboby else's playground???"

"A grain of sand, which has a size of about 100 microns, is made up of a million atoms and each atom is about a millionth of a millimeter. Each atom is a universe in its own right. At its center is the nucleus made up of protons and neutrons which is surrounded by a cloud of electrons. 99.9% of its volume is an empty vacuum. There are 92 different kinds of atoms, and these constitute the periodic table of naturally occurring elements."
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern
Science to the Mind of God
by Roy Abraham Varghese :399)

53

PET scans of the brain show the exact same type of activity as you find in Random Access Memories RAM in computers. They are both memory mapped and activity for the same activity/ programs is duplicated over and over.
The difference between very inteligent humans and slower humans is not as great as the differences between human beings and the rest of the animal world. As a matter of fact the differences in the brain matter of great thinkers and average people is negligable. This difference cannot be explained by mere physiology.
In retarded individuals there is brain damage. Just like a computer that parts of its memory have become inaccessable and the programs that are mapped to that function no longer run.
I don't think consciousness is an accurate enough word to use for the differences between humans and animals. The bible says we have been made in the Image of God. Because of this we have inherited, to a lesser degree, some of His attributes. He can create complicated systems from nothing. We can create higher ordered systems from lower order systems. Animals have a limited ability to create systems. But only certain systems. The beaver can create a damn. But for 5000 years beavers have been using the same materials and the same methods. Humans started with crude buildings and have progressed to the largest structures ever seen in our history. This far superior ability to create and build on other peoples systems ,creates an unbridgeable gulf between animals and humans. It cannot be explained by brain differences. Consciousness is in the spirit not physiology.

54

RA

"Animals have a limited ability to create systems. But only certain systems. The beaver can create a damn."

And the ant can create a hell.

55

Mr Ed

"Before you go off condemning everyone in the White House you might take note that Jeff Gannon is neither a White House staffer nor a regular member of the press corps."

Translation: Oh Lord Bush, my master ... I love you, I love you ...

56

Larry; Thank you for correcting my spelling. I assume my postulate is air tight since you made no criticism of it.
About the Gannon issue, please show us the evidence you have that Gannon was connected to the White House or that the White House planted him in the press room. You leftists have a reputation for making outragious claims and then having no evidence other than your paranoia to back it up ( Eason, Rather,Jason Blaire, Kerry, Kennedy, Polose, Shabby Harry, et al).
If giving a White House spokesman a soft ball question is evidence of collusion, then most of the MSM was working for Clinton.