Yesterday Today Tomorrow

Do you feel like you are always pressed for time?  Or, do you feel like you have too much time on your hands?  Does one have more than another?

Yesterday, today, tomorrow; how different is each from one another? They're merely past, present, future tenses of time.  However, let's pause for a moment and ask, what is time? Is time absolute or is it just an illusion? I purposely avoided commas in the title because those three tenses are just segmented but continuous frames on an infinitely rolling reel of  film. Now, I just obligated myself to explain that, don't I?

But, for a much spicier question, why does time "flow" and only in one direction? 

Please don't be discouraged along the way for what seems so complex of a subject because towards the end there is a method to the madness of this musing, as I often like to say - if only to stretch and flex one's mental muscle, so to speak.  Or, at least, tickle some of your slumbering brain cells into active wakefulness. For sure, some of what we think is difficult to understand is actually easier  than we think. Painlessly, I promise.

There is this to ask first, "Is time universal?"  In other words, if there are beings on a planet orbiting the nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri, only 5.9 trillion miles away, will they perceive a second, a minute, or an hour as "flowing" or "running" at the same rate that it does on earth?"

The quick answer is:  No, they will not. In fact, neither will anyone on Jupiter, Venus or Saturn,  or anywhere else in the entire cosmos. On a neutron star,  where a teaspoon of its material weighs 5.5 billion tons (about 900 Egyptian Giza-size pyramids, according to one calculation by someone with too much "time" on his hands), time may not even "move" a second, the way we perceive a second "to move" here on earth.  This gives new meaning to the term "local time", doesn't it? More on this in a bit.

The long answer is that earth time - seconds, minutes, hours, days, years - were established arbitrarily. A day, for example, is how long it takes for earth to rotate on its axis, allowing for equal but alternating exposure of its one side facing the sun (daylight), and the other side facing away (night time). Then early "timekeepers" subdivided one rotation into 24 segments, giving us the standard 24-hour cycle. It could easily have been, say, 20 hours or 10!  {Actually, many hundred million years ago earth was spinning much faster than it does presently, a day would have been indeed  20 hours long - hours as we "measure" them today}. Each hour was then subdivided further into 60 minutes, then 60 seconds.  That's all it was.  Arbitrarily. Local to earth and nowhere else. 

{And get this: Recently, like a two weeks ago, scientists just found out that earth is spinning faster than previously "clocked" by 1.59 milliseconds. If this keeps up we may someday need a leap second to compensate for the speeding rotation!}.   Like, anyone really cares.

Now, the ancients also figured out that it took  earth approximately 365 days to make one complete revolution around the sun.  Although at first people then believed that the sun revolved around the earth.  

With the exception of the Chinese, Jewish and the Mayan calendar, the entire world uses the Gregorian calendar today.  It was in October 1582 that Pope Gregory XIII made a small modification on the then widely used Julian Calendar.  As was then determined by the astronomers of that time, the year was not exactly 365 days. It was 365.25.  Pope Gregory XIII reduced the year to its present period of exactly 365.2425 days. There was and continues to this day approximately one quarter of a day each year that must be accounted for; otherwise, the accumulated "error" will build up to a ridiculous calendar "drift" that will render the calendar useless.  So, every four years that amounts to, again approximately, an entire extra day.  Hence, we have a leap year to account for it. And for anyone born on February 29 .. well, it's complicated.

Okay, we got that out of the way, so, are the present, the past and the future just illusions?  

The present technically, in the shortest interval of "time" possible, is that moment when the past ends and the future begins, instantaneously, as we perceive them as being different one from the other. But, literally and instantaneously, that shift happens in less than a blink of an eye, or using an atomic clock, from microsecond to microsecond (as in a millionth of a second to the next millionth second). By the time we say, "Give me a second", it's over!  The present moment is ephemerally fleeting, at best.

Here's  something to think about first.

The past is established as something we can never go back to while the future is beyond reach until it happens!  So yesterday, we can remember and everything significant that happened then can be read in yesterday's papers or on the internet.  Unless you are the fabled Merlin, of King Arthur lore, who can remember the future, tomorrow is nothing more than a gazillion probabilities, if we try to anticipate what potentially awaits everyone  from around the globe of over  7 billion people  and every conceivable possibility one field mouse escapes its predator, or what and how many flowers in a meadow one particular butterfly will land on. Until it "happens", nothing is ever certain. 

Using the reel of film analogy, the past is a series of exposed frames, the present is as it is being presently filmed (though quickly at perhaps 24 frames per the arbitrary second), the future are blank frames yet to be exposed.  Time is merely an accessory to the events being filmed.

Time that we think we are able to measure is something we cannot store, save and spend later.  Unless we associate it with observable physical changes, like a ball rolling down an incline or an egg breaking into a bowl, time by itself has no meaning, it is without physical form, body, color and texture.

Time has no effect on what will occur because events happen whether there is a clock, timer or any other "time" measuring instrument. Instead, "time", if we are to give it a character role - a literary extravagance, in a manner of speaking - is a bystander, just like we are if we were just watching what is happening around us.  We can choose to ignore it but events will continue to occur. Time and you and I, who are expecting for a sunrise or a sunset, are all bystanders! There is nothing we can do but wait. Well, not if instead we elect to be doing something, which "time" has no ability to do at all.

Wait, isn't the act of waiting an acknowledgement of "time running"? No. One is waiting for an event to occur, not for time to "pass" to cause an event to happen.  The brain, in an effort to sift through or to make sense of what it is witnessing, is forced to process the sequence of events,  the cause and effect phenomenon; that is, putting the cause ahead of the effect.  But "time" is not the reason for events happening, except as a marker of the order and sequences by which events occur. Blunter still would be that "time" as a bystander is not an observer, such as we are. We have consciousness, which time doesn't. That's the difference.  So, time is not real? Physically, no; but perceptively, yes. Bear with me a little bit longer.

Notice that when one is busy doing something, as in something really interesting or engrossing, time "runs" much too fast versus sitting idly, not doing anything. It is exacerbated when one is  waiting for someone to arrive, who is already running late.  Time seems to "run" at one particular pace when we are painting the room but excruciatingly a lot slower when we're waiting and watching for it to dry.

Furthermore, when we were children, summer seemed to last a lot longer than the summer we experienced as adults. As children our mind was not quite as heavily laden with lots of so many things to worry about, plan for and sort through, as adults do. Children's perception of a slower passage of time  than how adults perceive time is best explained by another film analogy. A thick spool of film about to unwind is that of the child's. As the film unwinds from the wider diameter of the spool it would seem to move slowly.  By the time it gets closest to the inner diameter of the spool, closer to its center, the film will now seem to be moving faster, as one perceives that there is not very much left to unwind. 

That is the film of life.  The thinning of that spool is what seems to give people much grief.  Why?  How about if we think of it this way?  If we allow ourselves to be just mere bystanders, such as "time" is, then yes we see the spool getting smaller. 

Ready for the "method to the madness" I referred to in the fourth paragraph above?  

The film of life consists of two spools and the lens  in between.  The forward spool where developed frames are wound is the written part of our story - that scroll of life already lived and experienced.  We look to those as we have lived and experienced.  They are not to be repositories of regret or guilt.  We should be grateful to have had that much film accumulated in that spool.  There is no reverse motor that drives the spool, so forget the do over.  

The lens in between is where the film gets developed in the present tense.  That is also where we are allowed to change directions.  But, most importantly, that is where we get to enjoy our experiences. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch, so the lens will also develop our aches and pains, our moments of anguish and grimaces that are best and soon reposited to the forward spool.

Whatever we do, it should not be to look at the other spool of film. We do not need to see how thick or thin the remaining film is in that spool.  Instead, we focus on what is running across that lens. That is because today is all there is where we get to do what we like to do.  It is no longer possible to do anything at the forward spool.  The other spool is all about what could probably happen.

So yesterday, today and tomorrow are each a frame in the film of life.  But today is all there is. There is nothing we can do about yesterday, we cannot touch tomorrow, so we are left with today - the only place where we can do anything, including where we dream, plan and prepare.  So, we make the most of it before it becomes yesterday because soon tomorrow is here. Therefore, we cannot just be bystanders today.  That is the job for "time"!

Below is just elective reading for anyone willing to over stimulate his or her brain cells, but definitely not required to make any more sense of Yesterday Today Tomorrow.  But Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal will help.

That is one thing for time to be perceived differently by different people or observers.  But what if time, as we've come to understand it, really moves at really different rate - slower for some, faster for others, in real terms.

And so it was that one clever fellow, named Albert, postulated that time is relative!  He's been in the news lately because the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has proven once again another theory or two of his.

“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

It is widely accepted that Einstein said the above - a tongue in cheek commentary on relativity - but I don't know if he really was the one who said it.  

One thing Einstein did postulate that was counterintuitive but later was proven true is that time  "moves" at a different  rate between two observers who are moving at different speeds relative to one another. This phenomenon is real because if we don't account for the difference, navigation via GPS, how emergency and police locate where accident or crime victims are with pinpoint accuracy would be impossible (assuming, of course, their cell phones are on). These devices (including our car GPS) emit and receive signals to and from satellites circling the globe. However, the clock on the satellite and our phones move  at  different rates, so somewhere in Colorado Springs, a "correction" is constantly being done to synchronize the two clocks at regular intervals. Otherwise, in just a short period of "time" without the correction, your GPS navigation  will be useless.

If you thought clocks "running" at different rates are such a complicated concept, it is not!  Old Albert  used trains and flashes of lightning for his mental analogy/thought experiments but I can't find any locomotive graphics so I used the ones below. No rocket ships yet in 1903-05. 

 

Imagine Michael Jordan (MJ) dribbling a basketball down and up the ceiling inside a rocket ship (top drawing) that is speeding through space at half the speed of light, say.  {The drawing shows a mirror and detector as a photon of light bounces from the mirror above to a detector below, so just imagine it to be a basketball}. Shaquille O'Neal (Shaq) was watching him wheeze by from another ship (bottom) that was either slower or stationary relative to or in the opposite direction to MJ's ship.  MJ sees the basketball going vertically up and down as he dribbles it, hitting the ceiling and down to the floor and back endlessly (possible in zero-gravity). Nothing unusual and no different from you tossing a coin while sitting on a plane going at 400 mph. The coin drops back to your hand straight down.  That's because MJ and the basketball, you and the coin are going at the same speed in your respective flying machines.

Shaq, however, sees the basketball taking a much longer path as it goes up and down because relative to him the rocket ship is wheezing by, so the ball traces an inclined path as it goes up the ceiling, and an inclined path the other way as it comes down the floor, as shown by the middle drawings. 

So, what gives?  Both are observing the same thing but they perceive it differently. To Shaq, the basketball takes a longer path than how MJ sees it. Yet, it is the same event!

Reason: From MJ's perspective, watching the ball go up and down vertically, time "runs normally" as if he were on the ground; however, where Shaq is concerned,  "time" must be running slower for MJ since the ball is taking a longer path. 

Actual experiments using identical atomic clocks - one on the ground and another on board a flight on a 747 jet around the globe - had shown that the one on the plane had slowed down, albeit very minutely, but slower nevertheless. But if it were possible for an astronaut to travel at, say, even just half the speed of light, he will come back to find his twin brother an old man, perhaps even bed ridden, while he had aged only a year based on the clock/calendar on board his space ship.  If the astronaut took a longer trip, say five years at an even faster speed, he may come back to find his brother and an entire one or two future generations of his family all gone.  It is as if he had leaped-frog to the future. That phenomenon is, of course, fondly labeled by scientists as the "twin paradox".

A photon of light that reaches our telescopes after leaving its source, be it a star, another galaxy, etc. some millions or even billions of years ago, is still the same photon. Unaged. Not by a nanosecond.

Now, if you were a photon of light, streaming through the cosmos, you too will not age,  you will not grow old, become literally eternal, for sure.  It will take another musing to explain why it is impossible for you or I to travel, at the speed of light, so let's get that fantasy out of our mind. For now, anyway.  

So, what is time then? We've established that time is arbitrary.  It is also local. But as arbitrarily as we've made it, relative motions of observers perceive it differently, and then gravity also affects it.  Those living at sea level will age a bit slower than those up in the Himalayas. Twins Peter and Paul work at the Sears tower.  Peter works at the top floor.  Paul works at the basement parking garage. Peter will age sooner (will be older than Paul) after a certain time.  That is the other weird part about the flow of time.  Gravity affects the passage of time.  A massive gravitational field like inside or at the black hole, will cause time to not only slow down but perhaps to not move at all.  This is what complicates the correction that the navigation system must do.  The satellite is moving fast but it is also farther away from earth where gravitational field is stronger so the correction algorithm must account for it. 

This is exhausting.  So, enough for now.

Last Rites for Mr. & Mrs. Common Sense

Almost to the day, three years ago, on September 27, 2019, I mused about, "Eulogy for Common Sense". One reader  told  me then  that perhaps it was much too premature  to eulogize it.  Perhaps, but what about now?

Part of what I wrote then was, "Common sense is dying from small blows and  lacerations but alas with very little blood. It is now punch drunk from a jab here, a jab there, and body punches that merely stagger the senses without really causing a knockout, not even  a knockdown. Common sense has not gone down for the count. At least, not yet. But already it has  had recurring standing counts. And that is worse than being counted out entirely. It is a pitiful sight".

World's no.1 ranked tennis player, Novak Djokovic, was denied entry into this country and was therefore not able to play at the U.S. Tennis Open to defend his title this year. His "troubles" actually started in Australia  earlier  when he was deported by the government after he was allowed entry at first, then deported.  His lawyer, after a  court battle brought on by legal challenges claimed that Djokovic already had natural immunity after contracting the virus in December, 2021 from which he recovered fully. However, before the Australian Tennis Open could begin his visa was revoked and he was promptly deported.  A friend from Australia sent me an email where the joke there was that the reason for his predicament was that his first name rhymes with "No Vac".

The more recent joke now, of course, is that Novak Djokovic could have come in with the thousands who enter the country illegally via the U.S. southern boarder, say Texas, where that state's governor could have promptly put him on a bus to New York, visa-free with full sanctuary protection when he gets to Grand Central Station or Flushing Meadows.  Two million have so far illegally entered the country across the boarders - unvaccinated, unvetted, with no entry visas - but the No. 1 Tennis player  in the world, with natural immunity from Covid, could not come in, despite the obvious dissipation of Covid concerns.   Another devastating jab at common sense. 

Madness, 1, Common Sense, 0. 

Mr. Common Sense had been in the ring so many times against many opponents, mostly questionable contenders for the title of sense and sensibility, while at ringside Mrs. Common Sense can only watch and gasp in tears. 

A woman, seven months into her pregnancy, was murdered at her home when she surprised a burglar in the middle of the night.  The suspect was apprehended later.  He was charged with double homicide - for taking the life of the mother and the unborn child. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

In a different case, a woman who was seven months pregnant decided she didn't want the baby anymore.  She went to a clinic where a doctor performed what was "necessary".  Unfortunately, though rare, the mother suffered from sepsis, also called blood poisoning, although it has nothing to do with poison. Bacteria had entered her bloodstream during or perhaps after the procedure, and in less than 48 hours she passed away. The doctor was not criminally liable for the death of the mother or the unborn baby, or charged with any crime.  This is not to be a political argument for or against Roe V Wade.  Treating this with the typical retort of "apples and oranges" when compared to the first scenario may be deemed logically proper, but Mrs. Common Sense is troubled by the double standard applied to both unborn babies; neither  was aware of the nuances of the law nor the intricacies of modern morality and ethics.

So, who are these contenders in the ring from whom Common Sense has been taking unrelenting punishments?

NIMBY's. This now arguably trite acronym has been coming up in conversations recently, "Not In My Backyard". Undocumented/illegal "migrants may enter through the Arizona, New Mexico and Texas boarders by the thousands each week but a hundred of them flown into Martha's Vineyard or bused to Washington, DC, Chicago and New York is abhorrently wrong!  Yes, it can be considered a political stunt on the part of the Florida and Texas governors but did it not get the national attention that nobody outside the southern boarder states would talk about, not too long ago?  Suddenly, it is part of the national conversation after almost two years of 8-10,000 per day of illegal incursions at the boarder with hardly a peep from the national media. 

"Double Standard-ers"  are also contenders in the ring that Mr. Common Sense had to face. 

Least known is that the administration, months earlier, did the same thing. Several plane loads of "migrants" who entered the southern boarder were flown to various places around the country in the early morning hours. It was acknowledged by the WH press secretary when asked but it got no more than a ho-hum from the general media. When two state governors did the same thing in bright daylight hours, there was uproar from the media. Those flown to the island paradise called Martha's vineyard "were treated as political pawns in such horrific and inhumane conditions". 

Those were the same migrants who probably spent all their life savings for passage, who went through unimaginable conditions trekking through  harsh territories from various countries of origin to get to the boarder, fraught with all kinds of potential peril along the way; but when they were flown by jet, fully fed and properly clothed, to a beautiful island, they were "maltreated like kidnapped prisoners".  Two days later the administration bussed and ferried them out to a  Massachusetts military base and housed in a compound to await further "processing". 

Meanwhile, no media attention focuses on the thousands of migrants who lost their lives on their way before reaching and while crossing the border. Nothing was nationally covered about the 52 migrants who suffocated to death inside a cargo container truck abandoned by human smugglers nor the many who drowned crossing the river. One Texas border town reported yesterday that they were running out of freezer space for dead migrants brought in every week. 

Four years ago on December 12, 2018, the title of my musing was "$5.00 Per Gallon". No, it was not about the price of gasoline but "just the rolling price per gallon difference between the gas pump prices on Fannin Street in Houston, Texas and Rue Manin in Paris, France as of a particular time.."

Well, just barely 2-3 months ago, gasoline prices did go up to and higher than $5.00 per gallon in many parts of this country.  Not quite on Fannin St. but close enough for even Texas drivers to grimace at the pump.

Climate-ers and climate hypocrites are contenders in the ring with Mr. Common Sense, indeed.  Movie stars, politicians, media personalities and social luminaries lecture us on climate change due to profligate use of fossil fuels but we know they are not serious.  They live in 10,000 square foot homes with not a single solar panel on the roof, nor a windmill standing in their surrounding multi acreages of land.  We know their home, fire places and barbecue pits and pool heaters use gas.  They don't fly commercial because private jets are more convenient.  Their yachts have no sails because wind is unpredictable while diesel engines are reliable.    We know they don't believe in rising sea levels; otherwise why do they have waterfront and ocean-view homes at The Hamptons, Chesapeake Bay, yes, at Martha's Vineyard, and San Francisco Bay, etc.  

But these folks are the loudest voices on climate.  They look down upon those ignorant "climate deniers" below as their private jets soar at 35,000 feet, spewing tons of carbon dioxide. They are so eloquent at using terms like "carbon footprint" and "existential threats" posed by fossil fuel and call for eliminating gas stoves  and furnaces in new home construction for as long as their  mansions are grandfathered into exceptions and there must be no mention of their stretched limos that ferry them to and from their galas and annual movie awards nights or their attendance to  global warming initiative conferences in their private jets and complementary armor plated gas guzzling behemoths. 

Today, here and Europe where gas prices are often the cause for anguish for many families, I am reminded of a quote. From among those who were then protesting the high prices in Paris four years ago, the quote was much too eloquently expressed with the simplicity of thought that could only come from the philosophy of a simple man. The man said, "We too are concerned with the end of the world but what we are most concerned  with right now is the end of the  month".  

The man is right. The end of the world to him is lopsidedly distant when set to a timeline that could be a mere few days to the end of the month where his budget could quickly turn vermilion red versus the green promises to hold off a global catastrophe a hundred, a thousand years from when he retires.

The "green-ers" too are contenders in the ring. They drive Mr. Common Sense to dizzying stupor with their shadow boxing and HTT attitude and self elevating platitudes toward climate. HTT stands for "holier than thou". My musing on, "In Awe of Climate" is second most read of all my musings because I think many readers agree with the futility of the promises and the premise espoused by the climate-ers among us.  Mr. and Mrs. Common Sense do not begrudge, and no one should, the successes of those fortunate ones who made a financial success of their lives but where they draw the line is when those same folks go on to lecture everyone who has a different opinion.

There are many more pages to write on what bothers Mr. and Mrs. Common Sense but  let's just have them ask three more questions.

1. Why is it that biologically male transgenders compete in women's sports but biologically female trans do not  in men's sports?  The answer: Clearly the latter just simply cannot compete in men's sports while the former can dominate (and with ease) the women's competition.

2. Why is the Air Force Academy focusing on Diversity and Inclusion by banning the use of gender identifiers like Mom and Dad, girlfriends and boyfriends, and all other pronoun insanities when the world is teetering on geopolitical/military chaos in an apparent rebalancing of global power as other world leaders perceive a weakening resolve from once the supreme example of democracy and capitalism?  A long question but we can see Mr. Common Sense shrugs his shoulder while Mrs. Common Sense only stares into the far distance, as if everything she used to take for granted as a legacy to their grand children is slowly sinking below the far horizon of a setting sun that is the USA. 

3. How did the U.S. go from exporting oil to importing again and dipping into its strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) as a stop gap measure to rising gas prices? Nobody seems to recall anymore why the U.S. created SPR' in 1975, almost two generations ago.

"Congress authorized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA, P.L. 94-163) to help prevent a repetition of the economic dislocation caused by the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo".

Mr. Common Sense is resigned to the idea that any administration can add to  the reason for SPR, such as a temporary relief for a mismanaged economy either from incompetence or from misguided self flagellation dictated by a few HTT's in the administration, to assuage general public outrage at high prices for a commodity that this country has so much of, but ..

There is more but I do not want to exceed the limit of the reader's capacity for anguish.  Meanwhile, I leave you with these two self-explanatory images.  

What Do We Really Know?

The question to follow is, "How do we really know?" And then, "When do we really know?"  Then there is the question, of course, about, "How do we know that what we know is real or not?".   That is the question.

Information is what determines reality; albeit, reality is itself not quite as well grounded to the truth, as sometimes the case, which we will get into in a bit. Every pixel of what we see, every decibel of sound that we hear, things we can smell and taste, everything whispered, touched, felt, all of these are conveyed by information.  In other words, nothing gets perceived, nothing gets transmitted and nothing gets done without information; which can be real, imagined, or perceived to be real.  And there lies the conundrum. 

Let's begin with this first. Everything that is around us comes to our attention and awareness through pieces of information, large and small. Whatever it is you are trying to observe and likewise everything you want to convey to others can only be carried by information. We must think about this for a moment.  

Survival from the beginning of life is primarily about our brains taking in information - understanding and remembering what is relevant and discarding what is not.  Predators and prey in the wild are constantly playing the information game of life and death. Plants too have ways to process and remember information.  In other words, only inanimate objects have no use for information.

And then …

There is one ugly side about information.  Deception. We find stories of deception in the courts, in politics, in world conflicts, in the everyday unfolding of life itself.  The Bible not only has much to say about it but it is where we are told, allegorically at least, that Eve was deceived into eating the forbidden fruit with false information. Then there was the story of Jacob and Esau and the birthright bestowed by their father Isaac.  The story depicted in Genesis, chapter 25, talked about information and deception.  Reading that story, one can be led to believe that information can have two sides to it. The deception that could arise from it can both be perceived as either good or bad depending on the beholder.

There was one famous story of deception that remains one of the greatest true stories in the annals of world history that was crucial to the outcome of WWII. It unfolded at a critical point of the war in 1943.

The Allied forces were planning to take control of the Mediterranean as a prelude to the invasion and retaking of Europe.  Sicily was the target naval landing zone but obviously the Allies did not want that known to Hitler's forces. They must divert attention to somewhere else - Greece and Sardinia - thus altering the enemy's defensive preparations.

"Operation Mincemeat" was created. It was one, if not the most, elaborately concocted military deception in war. One quick note for the fans of the James Bond franchise.  Ian Fleming, before he became famous for creating the character of 007 in the multi-book series, was a Lt. Commander in the British Navy.  He was assistant to the head of naval intelligence.  He suggested a military deception by having false documents fall into the hands of the enemy's intelligence network as indirectly as possible without arousing suspicion.

The plan was to have a body, purportedly that of a British naval officer, wash ashore in the southern coast of Spain.  Spain was neutral to the war efforts but it shared information freely with the Abwehr, the German intelligence group. 

British operatives searched for and found the body of a homeless and unfortunate Welshman who died from eating rat poison in a warehouse.  They preserved his corpse in a freezer as they busied themselves creating a background for the man, giving him a false identity, a military career, even personal details of  a pilot with a girlfriend, so that his jacket included theater ticket stubs, a love letter and some bills due to be paid, etc. By the time they were done, the corpse was someone with a promising military career who was entrusted with top secret information of an upcoming naval operation that he was supposed to deliver to the top field commanders - the planned Allied attack on Greece and Sardinia.  The false story had his plane crash off the coast of Spain. A British submarine actually carried his body and released it so that Spanish fishermen would find it.

Sure enough, the Spanish police alerted the Abwehr agents in place who carefully took photos of every document that was on the "officer's" jacket, which they promptly dispatched to Berlin.  The Spanish authorities then proceeded to return the body to the British consulate with all the pretensions of goodwill and diplomacy.  The British knew, of course, that the documents had been scrutinized. The forensic markers that were on the body and clothing were clearly disturbed. 

Berlin was convinced that the documents were real, which prompted the German High Command to reposition their forces to defend Greece and Sardinia.  Sicily fell and the rest is history. 

The story was later revealed into a movie in 1956 titled, "The Man Who Never Was".  Ian Fleming admitted that he actually lifted the idea from a detective story he read earlier about a dead body with planted information as a ruse for deception.

The retelling of that elaborate story was to show that if such manipulation of information was achieved with 1940's technology, what chance have we against far more sophistication in the molding and bending of information. How are we to know that what we think we know is real or not?

In these days of 1000 megabits per second of internet speed in many households today, when 200 to 500 MBPS are already sufficiently swift, what chance have we against the speed of data dumps of so much material for the brain's capacity to process.  The inevitability of all of these is brought on by something least likely to be detected by a human brain that has not quite evolved in lock step with the evolution of technology.  The opposite could be happening, instead.  

Our brains can be lulled into laziness as we depend more and more of the heavy mental lifting to the computer.  The smartphone is the one getting smarter at each product release. We've become addicted to the nectar of technology. We've become dependent on information being fed to us with nothing more than a few  keystrokes.  In 1943 and for decades following it, one had to pull out a book or several books off the shelf and flip through pages upon pages of material for information that today can be had in seconds.

Information is also least likely expected or assigned its proper value or even recognized for its far deeper and most absolute role in how reality works or what reality really is.

Let's first look at reality as it pertains to what is truly real and what is perceived to be really real by dissecting what we see in the "news" these days.  I put news in quotes because "news" these days seems to have been devalued worse than Venezuela's or Zimbabwe's currency.  The inflation that now afflicts news gathering and disbursement is also matched by the real economic inflation in the U.S. that at one time was dubbed earlier by the administration as transitory and later assigned a minor cause for concern.  When it could no longer be ignored, the solution was a massive spending bill, called the "Inflation Reduction Act". Direct from the White House one-page summary of "Investments" (euphemism for spending taxpayer's money), copied and pasted below, please note which program gets the lion's share (sincere apology to the lion).

TOTAL INVESTMENTS $437 billion

Energy Security and Climate Change 369 billion*

Affordable Care Act Extension 64 billion**

Western Drought Resiliency 4 billion***  

Obviously, other past administrations of a few decades past had misused information as well.  From the Vietnam War to the Gulf War, the bending of information was a go-to move by any administration to sway public opinion, foreign and domestic. 

In these days of instant everything, - hard news, false news, rumors, twits, streaming media bits and pieces - our senses can be overwhelmed by a bombardment of information.  The Russia Hoax and stories of errant phone calls to a foreign leader have caused so much national schism and the debilitating effect of two presidential impeachments.  

Such is the power of information, or rather the misuse and abuse of it, which is now the road or the favored avenue that political leaders are willing to travel on to guarantee success. At what cost and what quality of success do they have in mind?

The question of, "What do we really know", forces us into a perverse cynicism because, "Why do we really want to know" seems like a fool's errand when we no longer know what is real and what is not.

Monkey Hears, Monkey Sees, Now Monkey Talks

It has finally come to this most unexpected way humans have not anticipated. Actually, it was about thirteen years ago that historians will confirm as the point in our history when a widely diverse sector of the planet's inhabitants finally decided they have had enough. So it was  in 2009 when the unthinkable happened but was kept from our attention.  We were busy worrying about an economic downturn that began in 2008 that lasted for about two years, so it escaped our attention. 

Well, this year, we're going through another economic reckoning as we speak, and we're still not paying attention. 

1898 was the year when the U.S. took over the 7,000 island archipelago from Spain and held it for fifty years before granting it independence on July 4, 1946 (after WWII). Now, it can be revealed.  But first, it was way back in 1907, somewhere in the southern tip of the Philippines when the idea first germinated, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War.  

The U.S. Army's 27th Infantry Regiment was formed in 1901 to serve in the Philippines. For its regimental march, the regimental band leader, G. Savoca, wrote the official lyrics in 1907 based on the tune that was the official march of the Philippine Constabulary Band which notably played it during The St. Louis Exposition in 1904.

The song was officially called, "The Monkeys Have No Tails in Zamboanga".  Zamboanga refers to the western peninsular province of the southern island of Mindanao. It was there that an undercurrent of outrage begun which sparked a rag-tag group to form.  It remained a secretive group for many decades.  In 2009, it adopted what is now its current name. But let's back up for a bit for a little zoological detour.

In the scientific classification of living things, we are part of the Animal Kingdom. A step further down, we are in a Class of Mammals, then belonging to the Order of Primates, which is subdivided further into Humans (us), the Great Apes, made up of gorillas, orangutan, chimpanzees and bonobos, and the lesser ape - the Gibbons. The other sub order are the monkeys, lemurs and tarsiers. 

Well, note that the difference between apes and monkeys is that the latter have tails; all the apes have none. 

The monkeys in Zamboanga took offense to how they were depicted in the song which they declared to be a big lie. But they kept their outrage to themselves the way they had kept their cool during the previous three centuries when the country was a colony of Spain. They did form a semi-formal organization in the mid 1900's which they thought would help the country's plea for independence by forming the Delegation of Monkeys from Zamboanga (DMZ). They claim to this day that they had coined DMZ long before it was used in the English language in the aftermath of the Korean War in the 50's, when the phrase "demilitarized zone" was first used. 

Why come out now?  The final straw is the post-Covid but new disease called monkeypox.  The DMZ has now evolved into a much bigger, diversified organization called, "Coalition of Highly Intelligent but Maligned Population", CHIMP, for short, since 2009.  Operating under the radar, they influenced the United Nations and the U.S. CDC to expunge and replace the name monkeypox because apart from racist innuendos, it is stigmatizing and insensitive. Very clever. But how did they succeed?

For one, we brought this on us after over a decade of cancelling, modifying, and redefining words in the English language, often in the name of political correctness and insatiable woke-ism.   We have gone way overboard by succumbing to every little hurt feelings so that everything must be softened to the constituency of marshmallow or the delicate softness of a pillow encased in silk, so as not to offend or hurt feelings of a few hypersensitive souls.

Well, chickens are preparing to document their grievances for the other disease called, chickenpox. But the monkeys are not done yet.

It was in 1835, long before the monkeys in Zamboanga were offended, when a political article was written, "It remains for the juste milieu, which are amidships, to consider whether they will not quash this ‘monkey business,’ by hauling down the rag of offence, on condition that the other shall disappear along with it.” CHIMP made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that they are appalled by referencing questionable behavior to one of their upstanding members.

What's up with brass monkeys, another thing to gripe about. Meanwhile, the organization is claiming for compensation for the trademark abuse of the phrase "monkey wrench".  Additionally, CHIMP is offended by the use of "throwing a monkey wrench" as a form of disruptive rhetoric.

CHIMP is increasing in numbers and clout as they expand their membership to other species.  No less than the symbol of America is speaking out.  

A representative said this, "For the life of us, for the majestic symbol that we represent, we question the people's sanity and intelligence for insisting on calling us bald eagles. They continue to use the term ascribed to our general avian population the phrase 'bird brain'.  Little do they know that those droppings they find on the hood and roof of their cars are strategically jettisoned to hit only newly washed vehicles".  They point out that the smallest of their species, the hummingbird, is equipped with a spectacularly high-performance brain.  They remember every flower they visit, calculates  the  interval to re-visit them when the flower has replenished its nectar.  They can recognize the face of the human who replenishes the bird feeder. Without GPS and long before humans had created maps, hummingbirds for thousands of years would go from as far north as  what is now known as Canada to South America on epic roundtrip migrations, flapping their wings at 70 times a second.

One bird species is really peeved.  "You see, one does not have to use any modifier to our species' name to make it sound vulgar and demeaning. To be called a vulture is singularly gut wrenching. Specially when ascribed to a species that practically depends on a gut that can handle five-day old corpses.  We perform the dirtiest job to keep diseases from spreading on planet earth by getting rid of all the unburied dead.  We have a reason to be offended and we're waiting to have our soiled name formally changed.

"Now, now", counters another member group.  "The word, maligned, in our organization's name mostly applies to our species. Snake oil is a total lie and to associate it with charlatans and con men by referring to them as snake oil salesmen is outrageous. Forked tongue is clearly another ignorant abusive reference. Our forked tongues represent our uncanny ability to analyze the environment by sampling the air for minute scattering of molecules, capturing them and swiping them at the roof of our mouth for a rapid analysis. It is forked so we can actually read the environment in 3 dimensions and determine sources of our interest left or right, directionally. The spine tingling revulsion at the sight of us is unwarranted."

Animals from "down under" have come also to seek assistance from CHIMP. One in particular is irritated by what is clearly a derogatory phrase that is of American origin. The largest of the marsupials take serious exception to connecting the name of their species to a  mockery of the justice system by describing it as a kangaroo court. Along with that complaint the Australian chapter of CHIMP is also taking up the case of the Tasmanian devil. Here is a statement from their representative, "We are uniquely a carnivorous marsupial and while we take pride in being a ferocious predator, there is a creature in the West that is more aggressive and temperamental than we are, yet they are called  honey badger and the wolverine is honored as a team mascot.  We protest the discriminatory and unequal treatment".

From the ape family, we hardly hear much complaining, specially that a manufacturer of what has now become a popular and effective product line named it after their largest member; Gorilla glue and other adhesives are big sellers. However, their representative has this to say, "What is really wrong with the idea of an 800 pound gorilla in the room?  Come to think of it, if you put one of us in that room, we are not responsible for any awkwardness created nor should that situation be used in reference to a purely intractable human problem". The not-so-forgetful pachyderm family remembers that moment when they first heard of the white elephant. "It is derogatory to our species although there is no such thing", their representative claimed. "And by the way, we are not big fans of peanuts, really. We prefer watermelons."

From the canine and feline order, although much loved and adored, they signed off on a joint petition.  One group is clearly justified to rail against the expression, "dog eat dog". "We find that disgusting but what is even more revolting is that in some places, however remote and far from civilized society, we have become part of the human menu.  It shudders us to think that we are man's best friend on one hand and we are a delicacy on the other. A former U.S. President even bragged he tried it once as a young man."

A delegation of cats have this to say, "It is nice to be referred to as having nine lives. It is not true, but it has not stopped some crazy humans from testing that false characterization and many have attempted many ways to test it. We are still grappling with the idea of associating black cats among us with the paganistic celebration of Halloween.  Why do they keep images of black cats with witches? In America where Halloween is a huge tradition, we are maligned by their hypocritical and superstitious attitude towards us on one hand, then on the other, they brandish with fervor that, 'Black Lives Matter', our nine lives notwithstanding".

We only have ourselves to blame. Political correctness and woke-ism, the snowflaking of the youth, particularly, are all to blame.

Since it all started from a song, I include below the first two of nine stanzas of it. I understand Spotify has it in their selection.  The song was featured in the old war movie, starring John Wayne, "They Were Expendable", about PT boats and their heroic Navy crew, based in the Philippines during WWII. Years ago I remember a conversation with an American veteran of WWII who served in the Pacific who remembered the song.  He even belted a few bars with gusto for my benefit after I told him I've been to Zamboanga a couple of times on business, while still working in the Philippines. It is a beautiful part of the country and is a tourist attraction with key historical landmarks.

Here goes:

The Monkeys Have No Tails in Zamboanga

Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga,

Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga,

Oh, the monkeys have no tails,

They were bitten off by whales,

Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga.

Chorus:

Oh, we won't go back to Subic anymore,

Oh, we won't go back to Subic anymore,

Oh, we won't go back to Subic

Where they mix our wine with tubig*,

Oh, we won't go back to Subic anymore.

*Filipino for water

Eternally You

That is not a typo although I did peel that off from the more well known closing salutation, "Eternally Yours", from many a-love-struck letter-writer pledging unwavering devotion. But this is much farther and deeper away from that because this is really about the "everlasting you" - a daring look into why some scientists and researchers think that consciousness, discreetly individualized or as a composite  trait of all humanity, is fundamental to the entire universe; which begs the question, therefore, does our individual consciousness survive into eternity? 

"Donald David Hoffman (born December 29, 1955) is an American cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a professor in the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science".

He has a PhD in computational psychology at MIT and at one time a research scientist on artificial intelligence there, which establishes that he is not some New Age philosopher or conjurer of outlandish metaphysical theories on the conscious and subconscious mind.  

What sets him apart from the mainstream scientific academia is that he believes that consciousness is fundamental to the universe.  He is not alone though there are far fewer of them relative to the majority of scientists.  However, the concept is not exactly new because for centuries some notable historical figures, who were scientists and philosophers and religious leaders in the past, adhered to a similar concept - the idea of eternal life, which has long been the foundation of almost every religion from Buddhism to Islam to Christianity.  But I am getting ahead of myself here.  A few steps back first.

Scientists, medical doctors, neurologists, psychiatrists tell us that consciousness originates only from within each individual brain - soft tissues of neurons, nerves and the trillions of synapses that occur within the confines of the average three and a half pounds of gray matter.  The brain dies and consciousness associated with that  brain, and that brain alone, ceases to exist.

Except for the truly non-believer in anything non-physical, and those un-swayed by anything spiritual, or who've unsubscribed to any faith, most people from various cultural upbringings believe that in the aftermath of death, there is something that goes on beyond. But every believer is stuck with the fact that we have  yet to see or witness beyond any doubt the existence of consciousness after death, particularly in a laboratory setting with conclusive repeatable recurrences.  However, and this is a huge "however", Hoffman and others like him believe that no one has come up with a compelling argument to the contrary, either.  Though proving the negative is not logically proper. 

For many decades scientists relied on theories and suppositions that  they believed with strong convictions, based only on mathematical equations, but without physical proof or effects until much, much later. Gravity is a good example. For a long time, scientists either believed or doubted Einstein's predictions on Gravity's ability to bend light, or affect the passage of time.  It was over a century later when sensitive and super accurate measuring instruments  became available that proved the theories right.

We will not get into the weeds too much, except perhaps for just a bit, and you may skim through the next long paragraph below and not miss anything.  The last third of this essay is where, I hope, we can get to the essence of why consciousness is indeed fundamental.

Now, to say  that consciousness is fundamental in or to the entire universe is no trivial declaration. Why? The so called Standard Model of everything that we know, so far, says that there are only four fundamental forces in the entire universe and that there are only 120 basic elements in existence, as graphically printed on the Periodic Table. These elements, of course, may be combined, mixed and matched, into complex compounds that make up everything we can touch or see. From the lightest of them all - the hydrogen atom with its one proton and one electron to the heaviest in terms of density, osmium and iridium, these were accepted fundamental elements long before we had proof of electrons and way long before the Large Hadron Collider was built to show us evidence of the existence of sub-atomic particles.  Scientists believed in quarks when they were mere speculations.  The Higgs boson,   first postulated in the sixties, suspected to exist theoretically, was not confirmed until 2012 at the Large Hadron Collider. It was a sensational scientific event because this sub-atomic particle is the carrier of mass.

Now, take the fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetism (light, all radiation and magnetism), the strong and weak nuclear forces.  Those are fundamental, now very much beyond any doubt, and to lump consciousness with them  as fundamental too is earth shaking, to say the least! 

So, let's dive  into it.

Consciousness, in case you have not thought of it in one particular way, is our only path to reality. But wait!  What is reality?

"Perception of the physical world is a byproduct of consciousness".

First question: How can consciousness, in all its non-physical, invisible, imaginary nature, come out of some physical objects, such as a lump of moist gray substance that is our brain?

A piece of rock or iron has no sense of perception nor the ability to feel emotions. They are inanimate objects and are called non-sentient matter. Puppies and kittens are capable of sensing pain, hunger, the environment, hot or cold, wet or dry, but they do not have emotions; at least not the kind of emotions that we feel.  So, puppies and kittens are loosely sentient for being able to have impressions, feelings and senses but not to the same level as we are able to feel, such as sympathy, sorrow, grief, kindness, love, jealousy, etc.

Strictly speaking, therefore, we can claim to be the only truly sentient beings. Philosophers subscribe to the idea that the universe exists the way it is because there are conscious beings, like us, to observe it.  To the bees who "see" in the ultra violet spectrum, dogs that are color blind that only see in black and gray but can distinguish with super sensitive senses of smell, dolphins and bats navigate thru sonar, and snakes that can detect in infrared or sample the air with their tongue their version of the universe is completely different from ours. The reality of our universe is created in so many different ways.

The question then is, "How and why are we able to emerge from purely non-sentient body that is made from non-sentient material?"  Our bones, muscles, even nerves and skin are independently non-sentient body parts, including our brains. Yet, we are capable of not just sensing what is truly non-physical and independently but invisibly imperceptible to others, and furthermore  we feel myriad shades of emotions from physical body parts, specifically concentrated within that mass of gray cells encased in the skeletal cranium, but discreetly our own, and our own only. 

How can something that is without form, mass, weight and color, does not emit light or radiation nor does it occupy space, emerge from inanimate components that rely on inanimate sustenance like food and water,  minerals and vitamins, etc., but will cease to exist once denied of those?  Of course, the immediate response is that why are computers able to do calculations and so many other things we are not capable of doing mentally but cease to function once unplugged.  Lest we forget, computers do nothing but abide by and do nothing more than follow the algorithms specific only to the functions they were designed for,  created by humans. We label computer generated capacity to calculate and "think" as artificial intelligence (AI).  Where then does our own individual intelligence come from?

More importantly, no one can explain the process by which we are able to feel and convey love, hate, happiness, worry, sympathy, conscience, guilt, and so many other unquantifiable qualities. How do we know animals don't experience any of those? We don't, but if they do they must go through the same processes as we do to derive those qualities. But we are the only ones capable of complex thought and conveying those thoughts, like putting them down in an essay like this and you reading and critiquing it from your own individual perspective and nuanced ideas truly and discretely your own.

Going back to Dave Hoffman's conjecture that consciousness is fundamental to the universe, one profound question then is, "How does consciousness manage to not only manifest itself in every individual but how does it manage to survive after death, if at all, and move about from and to wherever?"

We do not know. But since we did not  see proof of electrons, all the other sub-atomic particles, the special and relative effects of gravity, etc., until much later, then should we not consider that someday we will actually see evidence of the origins of and processes of consciousness?  And, dare we say, incontrovertible proof of the everlasting existence of the soul?

It is at this point when we run out of answers that we acknowledge and surrender our inadequacies  to the existence of an All Powerful Creator.

To Be Uniquely Human

What does it take to be uniquely human? What is it that differentiates the species of homo sapiens from each and every other creature?  What makes one human uniquely different from one to another? To attempt to address those three questions, let alone get to some kind of easy answers, will be impossible within the limited format of an essay in a blog; it will be one audacious undertaking for one mortal to even try, if one were to write a thesis or a book on it.  To expect a facsimile of an answer is fair but it will not be justly proper to expect an explanation to everyone's satisfaction.

However, one should not be discouraged to try because only we, homo sapiens, are properly equipped mentally - to at least make such an endeavor, to understand even just a tiny bit, a sliver, of our humanity.  So, here it goes.

Memory (To Remember)

Every animal species is capable of remembering,  studies and experiments proved that certain plants even exhibit the ability to remember as well. Of course, to compare the ability to remember among animals and plants to our own would be like comparing a boulder to the entire pyramid of Giza. But strictly speaking, genes of every living thing are packets of memory codes, full of information on when to "switch on" at specific times, parts or groups of parts, often in synchronicity, towards putting together what would eventually be a physical copy of  creatures distinct from one another.  Every living thing's fate and survival depends ultimately  on bits and pieces of information that individual cells "remember".

Where we, homo sapiens, differ from all other living things, is that memory, to us, goes far beyond the basics of simple survival. What does this mean?  Distinctly different from all other living things is that our memory has taken us far beyond the confines of the natural physical world. We remember  for pleasure. Sometimes it pleases us more just to remember. In fact, people, deprived of the basic necessities of food and water, or freedom during forced confinement, or worse - imprisonment, will rely on memories of joyous past in order to survive the next few moments, the next few hours, days or longer.  The human brain may even hallucinate as a last resort to conjure happy moments, urging the physical body to cope and to keep on, thus ignoring physical pain momentarily.

Homo sapiens have learned to use memory beyond what animals and plants are capable of doing.  We remember for the sake of merely remembering.  For no other reason than to derive pleasure from a repository of data deep within our conscious brain.

A lion or tiger or barracuda, even a "smiling" dolphin, does not remember a perfectly cooked steak or lasagna, the charcoal and smoky aroma of barbecue or the tangy but sweet taste of strawberry.  Our memories are not only far too complex, there are layers upon layers of them - as if each layer in a Baklava is one distinct flavor from among an infinite number of layers. 

  

See?  The above photo has already triggered your salivary gland into action.

Our memories of over a trillion layers is what makes us distinctly human.  Every layer of them that we lose over time, or injury, or disease, is a bit like losing part of our humanity. Until that last moment when it will all be gone.  Or, is it? More on this later.

But we have another thing going for us, meanwhile.

Memory (To be Remembered) 

To remember is matched only by this one other uniquely human phenomenon -  our desire to be remembered.  It is indeed uniquely human to want to be remembered.  From our first day in school, from the very moment we met someone we liked, someone we loved to be with into as yet to be fleshed out future, we want others to remember us.  Reunions were invented precisely for reasons that we value our past as the present moment. We also long to be remembered. A truly human trait.

That favorite teacher of ours in elementary or high school will continue to live on in the memories of the twenty or so students in her class.  The thing is, unbeknownst to her (or him),  she is twenty different people in the minds of the students. Each student will remember her based on their interaction with her, how she affected them, and those views of her changes with time as well. Her influence on them changes as each student goes through his or her phases in life, how long ago it had been, how they turned out, etc.  Depending on how long that teacher taught, she will be many people to all the students she taught.  She lives on as a memory in every student's mind. She too will remember many of her students.  Come to think of  it, apart from our memory, our knowledge of who we are, we actually exist as diverse memories in other people who know and remember us. Such memories can be compiled into holographic images of us as we exist or have existed long after we are gone. Such is the power of memory.

Let's for a moment think of some kind of artificial intelligence (AI) software with special algorithm that can collate every bit of memory of the teacher from each student who went through her class over as many years. Not only will we see as many different persons as there are students' memories of the teacher but that she continues to exist in other people's minds. Even long after she is gone.

Each individual life can be summed up in the end as, "What and how we remember" and "How and what others remember us for". 

I've read of this heart-warming story a long while back. A man who regularly visited his wife, ailing with Alzheimer, in a nursing home was asked by a friend, "Why do you still want to visit her so frequently and are you not frustrated that she does not even know or remember who you are?"  His reply was, "She may not remember me or know who I am but I still know her and I still remember what she was and who she is."

Let's get back to that software and allow it with even more power, and it is able to collate memories of and about every human being who ever lived.  As you know, 99.999 ..% of people who ever lived are no longer with us.  That software has all the story of us, purely based on how every human being is remembered by everyone else.  Too fanciful?  No.  That is what we call civilization.  Keep in mind that every story of people, of individuals, of nations, of every era, is a collation of everyone's memory.  Not all of the stories may be real; in fact, for the most part they are almost all the recollection of those who managed to remember.  Yes, there are artifacts and records, but our story is mostly how every generation is remembered, how each  one is influenced and affected by the preceding ones.

Civilization is all about a compilation of memories - people eager to remember and being remembered.  That is what makes us human.

Speaking of that powerful software, is that not what humans have all along yearned for?  Well, perhaps it is not right to use the word software. Think carefully about this.

Whatever your faith is, whatever your inclination or persuasion, we will always come to that point where we run out of answers to questions (humanly answerable, that is).  Do we not in the end need to believe in an all knowing Entity who has all the data? Is it not then possible that how we've come to be who we are today, is because we are a compilation of data collated from all the memories of and created and held onto by generations upon generations of people who relied on software - we call the mind - being constantly updated by a Universal All Knowing Entity?  Call it what you want.  But is that not what God is? 

(Let me remind the reader that this is what this blog's sub heading at the top says, all along ..

"When you find yourself having to take a break from those that keep you on edge and stressed out, you can take the time to ponder with me some of the un-ponderable and the whimsical and lightly thought provoking issues you did not have the time to consider but now you may want to look into because you have a moment or two to spare or you just want some of your brain cells to be tickled out of slumber".)