The Most Critical Question!

[Doctordick]

Hi Anssi,

 

I have been thinking about your message concerning the publication of my work. To that extent, I started reviewing the first post of my proof (that would be the “Laying out the representation to be solved” thread). I determined a significant number of paragraphs which I would seriously consider deleting and was about to create a copy of that OP which would reflect the alteration I had in mind for your perusal. It was at that point that the critical issue actually occurred to me. My proof is actually quite straight forward and requires no deep thought outside common mathematical procedures. It is not the proof itself which is causing the difficulties here; it is rather, comprehending the problem being attacked.

 

The problem is that I have discovered a way of answering a specific question and that critical question seems never to occur to anyone else. It certainly occurred to me and it seems also to have occurred to you and that is the real reason you have taken the trouble to follow my arguments in spite of the difficulties. All these other people have utterly no grasp of the question you and I are concerned with. That fact pretty well even includes Bombadil; his interest seems to be more of trying understand my solution under the impression that the problem will become clear when he understands to solution.

 

So the real issue here is communicating the actual problem you and I have in mind. I think you find my work worth reading for the simple reason that it answers a question you had already asked yourself long before we had any interchanges. I sit and think about it and I cannot come up with a way of presenting that question which makes it appear to be worth thinking about to others. I think it is worth thinking about and you clearly think it is worth thinking about but how do we make others comprehend it is worth thinking about? That is the critical issue standing behind all this worthless verbal exchange.

 

The best I can do is to point out that the idea that our world view is created to explain our perceptions is an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis. I have mentioned that before but have achieved nothing but absolute refusal to think about the question. Perceptions clearly cannot be defined prior to the existence of a world view and the world view has to be based on something. Why people cannot comprehend this as a significant difficulty is simply beyond me.

 

I originally composed this as a private message between you and me but have decided to post it on the forum in the hopes that someone other than you and I can also comprehended the existence of this problem. Anyone out there who has any rational comments on the difficulty I bring forth please give me your reactions.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

The problem is that I have discovered a way of answering a specific question and that critical question seems never to occur to anyone else.

OK, please explain what you mean by 'a specific question'. For example, a specific question would be, why does the electron have a negative electrical (-) charge and the proton a positive (+) electrical change ? This represents 'a specific question'. So, please explain what specific question you have discovered a way to answer (see below in red text what I suggest may be 'a specific question' that you have found a way to answer ?)

 

So the real issue here is communicating the actual problem you and I have in mind...I sit and think about it and I cannot come up with a way of presenting that question which makes it appear to be worth thinking about to others...That is the critical issue standing behind all this worthless verbal exchange.

I would not say your thread posts have been worthless' date=' even if I do not always agree with details of your presentation.

 

The best I can do is to point out that the idea that our world view is created to explain our perceptions is an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis.

OK, so, your 'a specific question' is

 

'does the human mind create a world view to explain its perceptions of reality' ? --- correct ?

 

Perceptions clearly cannot be defined prior to the existence of a world view and the world view has to be based on something.

I agree. The human mind does NOT define perceptions (say a sequence of pulses of photon energy that interacts with the rods and cones of the human eye). The human mind 'integrates' the sequence pattern of photon sensations in such a way that it can then 'differentiate' a specific sequence pattern from all other such sequences. The product of this mental process (a type of calculus sum) is what I call a concept' date=' and it is the CONCEPT that the human mind DEFINES, not the PERCEPTION. The mental process product (the concept) is a transformation of perceptions, which are themselves an integration of patterns of undefined sensations.

 

IMO, this is why your mathematical approach using calculus to present an equation of explanation is valid (and very unique, never done before in history of science), because the brain uses the two aspects of calculus to form any possible explanation, the brain FIRST 'integrates', and it SECOND 'differentiates'.

 

Perhaps one reason you are having problem with people understanding your presentation is that calculus is almost always taught in the reverse order required by explanation, in the reverse order given in your presentation. Calculus is taught first as the process of differential equations, then second semester comes the integral aspects. But, this is not how the human mind goes about explaining anything, the integration is prior to differentiation in explanation.

 

So, if you could find a way to explain how the mental process of explanation is related to the mental process of calculus itself, perhaps that would help with understanding your math approach to the problem ?

 

the world view has to be based on something

Yes, it must be based on some"thing". What the word view is based on is that "thing" which is prior to perception. It is that which cannot be defined except to say as you do that it is 'something', that it is 'some language word'. And it is this something upon which all definitions will ultimately be based on. Of course, it is logical to try to place a language name label on what is the 'thing' of something) prior to perception, but the name is not important (and actually leads to confusion, but some words must be used, unless you want to represent the something as a symbol, such as {}, and each person fills in the language word as they wish).

 

You need to read Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations. The word used for the 'something' is not important, because all humans understand what is meant, the word is part of the language-game that must be used to communicate. Some use the word 'data', others 'noumena' (thing-in itself), others 'sensation', others 'undefined information', etc.

 

So, I believe your manuscript would benefit by an introduction where you explain that there is a set of language-game words vis-a-vis Wittgenstein {data, undefined information, noumena, thing-in-itself, sensation,...} that represent WHAT IS PRIOR TO PERCEPTION, and it within this set that different language words are used by different humans to form a world view. The key point being, all world views can be different (they may use different words) yet at the same time be identical (they are all based on the something that is prior to perception). Perhaps you have not made this aspect of your presentation clear ?

[Doctordick]

Rade, your response is an excellent example of exactly what I am talking about. Somehow you totally avoid seeing the question. The following seems to have flowed by your awareness like a cloud in the night!

 

The best I can do is to point out that the idea that our world view is created to explain our perceptions is an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis. I have mentioned that before but have achieved nothing but absolute refusal to think about the question. Perceptions clearly cannot be defined prior to the existence of a world view and the world view has to be based on something. Why people cannot comprehend this as a significant difficulty is simply beyond me.

The question is, “How the hell can we manage to come up with a world view when we have nothing to work with?”

Or perhaps, “How can one begin the examination of such a problem?”

 

'does the human mind create a world view to explain its perceptions of reality' ? --- correct ?

You left out the critical word -- “How”. The answer to your question, as stated, is patently obvious! Certainly the human mind has come up with a solution; we all have what we feel are reasonable descriptions of the world we find ourselves in.

 

Clearly no one else has anything to say on the subject either so we are totally back to my post. As I said, it is a question avoided by all, save myself and Anssi.

 

A funny comment. My horoscope for today was: “Sometimes the worst horse wins the gold cup. You'll witness such an unlikely occurrence today.” I was reminded of that horoscope when I read Qfwfq's latest post:

 

The trouble is, though, the very meaning of the word observation and, in the end, we could even say it isn't such a different thing from the above mentioned interaction, only that there is a mighty chain of them before an ape has had what we call a perception of something.

Ah, the “mighty chain of inexplicable events” is brought forward again as the only reasonable answer; "all yee know and all yee need to know" (seems I have heard that before somewhere) :P . I guess I should presume Qfwfq's answer to my poll would be, “yes, and the answer is already known but achieves nothing”; sort of a combination of answers three and four.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[belovelife]

i would say, if our perception of reality were based on only being able to observe a nucleus of an atom and our observation not be affected by the electron shell, then everything would look like dots on a black and white screen, if we could even see that, this not being the case, we observe throught chemical processes, this observation creates a map, now weather or not we all have the same map, i.e. the thought process on the observed incident, we all have similar conclusions based on common knowledge that we share, when we see the color blue, it may be different for each individual observer, but since it is always blue, we agree, with the ecception of color blind people, but they agree we see blue

[Doctordick]

I am sorry but you also seem to have missed the central issue of my post. In your first sentence you use the words “perception” and “observe” as if they have meaning regarding the issue of my post without giving any mechanism as to how these concepts are to be arrived at. It is quite clear that your presentation presumes the existence of a world view including such things as “black and white screens”, “chemical processes”, “maps” and “the color blue”. The actual things being mentioned are insignificant; it is rather that your thought process you bring forth cannot handle anything without a world-view and how to achieve a world-view is the critical question: i.e., you have already presumed the existence of a world-view.

 

I certainly get the impression that you have missed the point of my post. :(

 

Have fun -- Dick

[belovelife]

hmm, i apologize, mabe i did, then the problem seems to be the universe without our understanding of it in terms of ?

if we have a disussion on anything, we need term of wich to discuss, is the inference here the inability of our minds to discuss reality without present understanding of the universe

 

or mabe i did just truly miss the point

[Rade]

Rade, your response is an excellent example of exactly what I am talking about. Somehow you totally avoid seeing the question...The question is, “How the hell can we manage to come up with a world view when we have nothing to work with?”

Doctordick. First, thank you for finally putting into words what your most critical question is. But, your answer is not logical based on your OP language use of words. In your OP you said this

 

...the world view has to be based on something.

 

Do you see the contradictory nature of your thinking on this topic ? You first make a logical claim that the human world view has to be based on something (which, of course, is exactly correct, it is based on what you call 'undefined information', or 'undefined data', take your pick).

 

But, then you ask a 'how' question that logically is based on a false premise that we have nothing to work with, because you clearly made the claim that the world view is based on 'something', not 'nothing'.

 

So, here is the answer to your most critical 'how question'. The way (the how) we manage to come up with a world view is because we do have something to work with, and that something is what you call 'undefined information' (i.e., undefined data), the pattern of energy that exists prior to perception. Undefined does not mean "nothing" exists, undefined is 'something' that exists (some data pattern of energy) that is prior to the human mind placing a definition on it. It is "known" in the mind as a concept after the mind makes the transformation of perception --> concept (but, very important, it is not defined after this transformation). Only after the something of the undefined information, that is transformed into a concept, is defined, can we then move forward with human communication, with the process of explanation.

 

Now, if you are asking "how does the human mind come to define patterns of energy", the inner workings of the neurons of how neurons work together to define concepts, well, sure, we do not yet have that level of scientific knowledge. It is like asking "how does the electron feel the force of the proton" ? How can a physicist come up with a world view of this interaction when we have nothing to work with, when we have no idea 'how' the electron feels a force ? Well, the answer is, we DO have 'something' to work with, we have the effect of the interaction. That is 'how' the human mind comes to have a world view of the interaction between the electron and proton.

 

I would suggest you continue to work on your manuscript for peer review publication and just put aside your most critical question, because it ends not being a valid 'how' question based on the premise of your presentation that 'all world views are based on something'. Your most critical 'how' question makes as much common sense as this 'how' question--- How the hell can we manage "to build a wall of bricks and cement" (replace " " with "to form a world view") when we have nothing to work with ? :o

[Doctordick]

hmm, i apologize, mabe i did, then the problem seems to be the universe without our understanding of it in terms of ?

if we have a disussion on anything, we need term of wich to discuss, is the inference here the inability of our minds to discuss reality without present understanding of the universe

 

or mabe i did just truly miss the point

Yes, I think you have truly missed the point. Don't feel bad about it though as you are approaching some of the basic issues behind it. One of the first things that we need (once the question itself is understood) is a way of referring to the issues underlying a solution prior to having any idea whatsoever as to what they are. Without an ability to reference specific unknown things no discussion as to how to handle the underlying circumstance can take place.

 

Again, paraphrased, the question is, “How can one create a mental model of totally unknown and undefined information?” Two people have answered my poll above with the answer “it can not be answered!” I personally find that doubtful as every year (in the currently accepted world view), millions upon millions of single cell entities come into existence which, in something less than two years, manage to create a collection of cells which possess a rather complex and complete world view (at least from an AI perspective). To say such a thing can not be done is a rather extreme assertion considering the evidence.

 

And Rade, your response is simply not worth reading.

 

How the hell can we manage "to build a wall of bricks and cement" (replace " " with "to form a world view") when we have nothing to work with ? :o

Building a wall of bricks and cement is a problem people solve on a daily basis and we currently have major schools showing how to solve the problem. Building a world view is also a problem millions of people solve on a daily basis yet there are no schools even discussing mechanisms by which such a solution could be found. Everybody (including you) simply ducks the problem by holding the opinion that it is as an issue which can not be solved. If that is what makes your day, have it your way; it doesn't bother me.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[LaurieAG]

Hi Doctordick,

 

Building a world view is also a problem millions of people solve on a daily basis yet there are no schools even discussing mechanisms by which such a solution could be found.

 

Maybe your reluctance to discuss the points Rade and myself point out is part of the problem, millions of people means millions of world views.

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274625/hubris

 

Hubris fit into the shame culture of archaic and Classical Greece, in which people’s actions were guided by avoiding shame and seeking honour. It did not fit into the culture of internalized guilt, which became important in later antiquity and characterizes the modern West.

[Bombadil]

The way I see it, there are two ways to look at the derivations that you have posted. I suspect that one of these is at least similar to how you are trying to communicate it to others. The other one seems to be if not in contrast at least of no real interest to you.

 

The first way is that it is a way of approaching the question of how is it that someone can understand something when it has never been encountered before (their surroundings for instance or any thing for that matter). When it is clear that the way people try to understand something is by comparing it to something else. If this was the only way to understand something it would mean that no one could understand something that they didn’t already understand in its entirety as nothing new could be added to an idea.

 

This is perhaps too believable for some people as it is hard to find something that people will agree on being an original idea, but it becomes far more problematic when you ask questions like:

 

How is it possible to form a world view or how is it possible for someone to learn there first language. The later being I think a excellent question to ask but I suspect that the kind of people that would find it of interest would find your derivation of even lees interest then physicist are finding it.

 

Put simply, if you believed that the only way to understand something is to compare it to your previous experience of something, you are assuming that every thing that is understood has been previously encountered.

 

In short I see your derivation as a basis from which any possible world view (ordering structure) can be formed from. I really don’t even at this point see your derivation as defining any rules but rather as defining a structure in which any rule can be defined in.

 

In short I see the question of how a language can be understood as vary similar in many ways to the question of how a world view can be formed, as the question of using a language is something that I think could be thought of as a problem of its own. Although the biggest problem is that in trying to understand a language someone would instantly try comparing it to whatever language they knew without considering any other approach to the problem.

 

I think part of the problem with communicating your derivation is that if someone thinks about a problem long enough they will find a way of comparing it to some other problem they already see as solved and never try to solve it on its own. Which is what I see your derivation as doing in a rather elegant way.

 

The second way that I think your work can be looked at is one that I see as no less interesting and that is if something can be represented mathematically can expectation be placed on how it might change.

 

Your work seems to answer this questing with a resounding yes and you even lay the ground work that would be needed in such an endeavor. Of course so far I think that this view has been of little to no interest to you and anyone else either ignores it or shows no interest in it either.

 

Now as for your question

 

The best I can do is to point out that the idea that our world view is created to explain our perceptions is an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis. I have mentioned that before but have achieved nothing but absolute refusal to think about the question. Perceptions clearly cannot be defined prior to the existence of a world view and the world view has to be based on something. Why people cannot comprehend this as a significant difficulty is simply beyond me.

 

I think that the real problem here is that this is not a question standing behind physics. In fact if you asked what branch of science the question belongs in I wonder just what people would answer. If you ask me it seems that people working on AI would be more likely to ask this question, but I really don’t know any thing about the topic of AI so maybe I am wrong.

 

This is one reason that I previously asked if you had approached people in other fields about your work. Put simply, I think that the people to find would be someone that has little to no idea as of how to approach the problem set before them but open minded enough to try anything and sufficiently negligible in mathematics to understand your derivation. Perhaps that is not the kind of person that you are looking for but I think it is the kind that you are most likely to find.

[Turtle]

...

I think that the real problem here is that this is not a question standing behind physics. In fact if you asked what branch of science the question belongs in I wonder just what people would answer. If you ask me it seems that people working on AI would be more likely to ask this question, but I really don’t know any thing about the topic of AI so maybe I am wrong.

...

 

doc's never been much of one to read the work of others that i have suggested, but such is not the case for you. this is for all of you though, dear tender readers.

 

Strange Loop

Definitions

A strange loop is a hierarchy of levels, each of which is linked to at least one other by some type of relationship. A strange loop hierarchy, however, is "tangled" (Hofstadter refers to this as a "heterarchy"), in that there is no well defined highest or lowest level; moving through the levels one eventually returns to the starting point, i.e., the original level. Examples of strange loops that Hofstadter offers include: many of the works of M. C. Escher, the information flow network between DNA and enzymes through protein synthesis and DNA replication, and self-referential Gödelian statements in formal systems.

 

In I Am a Strange Loop, Hofstadter defines strange loops as follows:

 

“ And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind — a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is — here goes a first stab, anyway — not a physical circuit but an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive "upward" shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one's sense of departing ever further from one's origin, one winds up, to one's shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop. (pp. 101-102) ...

[Doctordick]

Hi Bombadil, for the most part, I think I understand where you are coming from and you are doing an excellent job of interpreting my presentation; however, I still think you are fundamentally missing the central question I am asking.

 

I think that the real problem here is that this is not a question standing behind physics. In fact if you asked what branch of science the question belongs in I wonder just what people would answer. If you ask me it seems that people working on AI would be more likely to ask this question, but I really don’t know any thing about the topic of AI so maybe I am wrong.

The real problem here is that this question stands behind all understanding of everything and thus stands behind every field of study. If one takes the topic referred to as AI to consist of analyzing how intelligent analysis works, then AI itself stands behind everything. Thus one could see my work as fundamental to AI. Except for the fact that AI research doesn't work that way. They are just as apt to see things as solved by extending their current beliefs as does any other field.

 

And, Turtle, you are trying to think this out but you also are stuck on what you think is true. Hofstadter's strange loop is also a way of recognizing the existence of the problem I am talking about; but it is certainly not a solution to the problem as it is actually no more than an expression of the difficulties which arise when one looks closely at the problem of explaining things.

 

That is why I begin my analysis with the definition of an explanation. I have what I think is an excellent definition of an explanation and, having such a thing, this definition allows me to logically analyze exactly what follows from that definition and nothing else. That analysis is central to the problem of understanding all explanations and “all explanations” would include Hofstadter's strange loops. Which, in fact, gets us back to the issue of tautologies. My question could also be paraphrased as, “what can one say about all internally consistent tautological constructs”.

 

Once again, the question I have in mind is a question no one wants to consider. The most prevalent reason for that fact is that they simply don't believe any answer can be found. “Man could not possibly fly as, if he could, he would have already done it”, seems to be one of the strongest arguments against intellectual analysis out there.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Turtle]

...

And, Turtle, you are trying to think this out but you also are stuck on what you think is true. Hofstadter's strange loop is also a way of recognizing the existence of the problem I am talking about; but it is certainly not a solution to the problem as it is actually no more than an expression of the difficulties which arise when one looks closely at the problem of explaining things.

...

Have fun -- Dick

 

well, that's something. i'm curious if you have read his full analysis in I Am A Strange Loop or just my quote. since he is talking about your problem, maybe you ought to right write him & expose him to your solution. :shrug: i loaned my copy out a few weeks ago so will have to take a rain-check on any deeper discussion, but you are right; i am thinking about it. :smart:

 

-- Roger

[Rade]

Hi Doctordick. I see we are now up to four different versions of "your specific question". For anyone with interest, here are the four different versions of "the most critical question" as presented by Doctordick:

 

version #1 The question is' date=' How the hell can we manage to come up with a world view when we have nothing to work with ?

 

[b']version #2[/b] How to achieve a world-view is the critical question ?

 

version #3 How can one create a mental model of totally unknown and undefined information ?

 

version #4 What can one say about all internally consistent tautological constructs ?

 

And, of great importance, is this statement made by Doctordick concerning perceptions, a world view, and what they are based on (which he identified as being something).

 

Perceptions clearly cannot be defined prior to the existence of a world view and the world view has to be based on something

 

Therefore' date='

 

1. Each human world view has to be based on [b']something[/b]

2. Each human has a unique world view of the something

3. There are billions of humans alive that have a unique world view of something

4. Hence, there are billions of world views of something, each unique

5. Something must be prior to the process of achieving a unique world view for each human

6. How to achieve a unique world view of something is the process of communication between something and each unique human mind, it is a process of communication of a human mind with something

7. The neurons of the human mind have the ability (the mechanism mostly unknown) to create a mental model of the something, the process is called concept formation.

8. The concept is the mental model of something created by the human mind.

9. If the human mind finds a need to communicate the concept of something to another human mind, they must place a label on the concept (hence indirectly on the something). That label is called a definition of the concept (hence indirectly a definition of something).

10. What one can logically say about internally consistent tautologies of something is that their negation is a contradiction

 

So, when we look at the four different versions of the most critical question, the answer is as clear as a bell. Reminds me of Billy Preston, who put the answer to the most critical question in song "nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have something(of Doctordick)"...http://

[LaurieAG]

Hi Doctordick and thanks Turtle,

 

And, Turtle, you are trying to think this out but you also are stuck on what you think is true. Hofstadter's strange loop is also a way of recognizing the existence of the problem I am talking about; but it is certainly not a solution to the problem as it is actually no more than an expression of the difficulties which arise when one looks closely at the problem of explaining things.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop

 

See also

Autopoiesis

Barber's pole

Droste effect

Euthyphro dilemma

Feedback loop

 

When I first started posting in Hypography I was half and half over whether or not a feedback loop just produced images of distortion or was some sort of ingrained natural feature of our universe. Over several years of reading your ideas and those of many others I came to the conclusion that there were very narrow sets of conditions where a feedback loop provides a useful model for scientific experiment.

 

The feedback loop can provide an exact representation of an Einstein Ring only when you consider that what we see through astronomical observations is a sequence of single cycle image frames unwrapped, so to speak, in a straight line from the source to the observer. Much is dependent on the cycle rate, the distance away from the observer and the discrete time period used in the making of our observations. All this can be calculated in the simple feedback loop setup that created my avatar image.

 

So the application of this model provides measureable and observeable results only in the discrete instance of each frame. If you go beyond this discrete instance and mistake the series of feedback loop images as a continuum, you raise some very interesting questions about the entire model/process.

 

Considering that the feedback models are theoretical photons that go around the universe and come back to their start point, observations form a Poincere section of a Lorenzian loop that is (not) twisted and the feedback loop operates at >30 frames per second, one very interesting question is 'What theoretical speed are the virtual photons travelling in the electronic portion of the feedback loop'.

 

D/t = 2 x pi * 13.7 billion light years/30 frames per second in 2 meters of metal/silicon.

 

roughly 2 x 33/7 x 13,700,000,000 x 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 300,000 / 0.03 recurring meters per second.

 

So you are partly correct Doctordick and probably should continue its development/evolution but you have failed to see why anything that uses this type of representation as a continuum merely proves that while the sums of all E might equal the sums of all M x C^2 along a continuum, the discrete instance is the only correct context for understanding the process occurring.

 

If something looks like this and does proceed along a continuum it can be discounted as practical unless it can be proved exactly which discrete set of calculated ratios, processes and conditions allow it to be so.

[Doctordick]

well, that's something. i'm curious if you have read his full analysis in I Am A Strange Loop or just my quote. since he is talking about your problem, maybe you ought to right write him & expose him to your solution. :shrug: i loaned my copy out a few weeks ago so will have to take a rain-check on any deeper discussion, but you are right; i am thinking about it. :smart:

 

-- Roger

Sorry Turtle; I have only read your post and the references you gave. My impressions may be incorrect but the only thing I see is the fact that he is presenting some rather difficult issues a world view seems to bring up. As far as I can tell, he makes no effort to talk about “HOW” such a world view is to be achieved. If you have more to say on the issue, I am listening.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Turtle]

Sorry Turtle; I have only read your post and the references you gave. My impressions may be incorrect but the only thing I see is the fact that he is presenting some rather difficult issues a world view seems to bring up. As far as I can tell, he makes no effort to talk about “HOW” such a world view is to be achieved. If you have more to say on the issue, I am listening.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

well, i have to say in all earnestness that you might consider actually getting & reading the book so you can see it all & hone your perception of it. it's only 400 or so pages, costs about $20, and hofstadter is a notable author. (have you read his Gödel, Escher, Bach or Metamagical Themas? i would think you would be all over something that is on your question. :shrug: if not, i'm curious why not. :confused: how exactly would you justify dismissing something you have an incomplete knowledge of? isn't that why you chide so many of us?